The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 10032000 - SD2 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on _October 3, 2000_by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Gioia, Uilkema, UeSaulnier, Canciamilla, and Gerber NOES: Mone ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Position on Proposition 36 On this date, the Board of Supervisors considered adopting a position in opposition to Proposition 36 (the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000) as recommended by Supervisor Gioia (see Exhibit A attached); and The Board also considered a report from the Substance Abuse Advisory Board recommending a position in favor of Proposition 36 (See Exhibit B attached). The following persons presented testimony on the matter: James Talley, 1406 Lincoln, Richmond; Tom Aswad, Chair of the Substance Abuse Advisory Board; and Maria (no speaker card submitted). On the recommendation of Supervisor Canciamilla, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that it is DETERMINED that the Board takes no position on Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attested: Phil Batchelor,Clerk of the pard of Supervisor d County Administrator By. eputy Cler .00 TO: Board of SupervisorsContra FROM: Supervisor John Gioia, District 1 - COStEI County DATE: September 19, 2000 SUBJECT: CALIFORNIA STATE PROPOSITION 36 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDAIlONS ADOPT a position in OPPOSITION to Proposition 36 (the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000) on the November 2000 ballot, which mandates drug treatment in lieu of incarceration for non-violent drug possession offenders. BACKGRQUND Proposition 36 (SAGPA) creates a new sentencing scheme, mandating drug treatment in lieu of incarceration for non-violent drug possession offenders. However, Proposition 36 is misleading since it effectively decriminalizes heroin, crack cocaine, PGP and many other illegal substances. The Board of Directors of the California Association of Drug Court Professionals has voted to oppose Proposition 36 since they believe that Prop 36 hurts legitimate drug treatment programs that work, including California's successful drug courts. The California Narcotic Officers Association and the California District Attorney's Association have concluded that Prop 36: "has the potential to dramatically increase the number of cases that go to trial, place an extremely heavy burden on district attorneys and the judiciary, and significantly undermine the efficacy of drug treatment as a viable strategy for helping addicts." Attached are two analyses of Prop 36 -- one prepared by the California Narcotic Officers Association and California DA's Association and one by Judge Harlan Grossman (one of our own drug court judges). CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ___w__OTHER SE.P-13-2000 14:40 CCC BOARD OF SLFERVISORS 15103743429 P.05 Horlan C. Grossman Superior Court Judge Carats Coes County Richmond,Ceulifbmia May 18,2000 Ile: Substance Abuse and Crime Pmvencetion Act(SACPA)of 2000 Initiative Dear Colloom in Criminal Justice and She Abuse Tit: I am writing s Wsoa d unlysis of SACPA. SACPA will be on dee Novembet,2000 B*W. If eawted,SACPA will tabes effect July 1,2001. I wm writing as someone who has been concened about subsbow abuse and t=tmem issues in the crimirW justice field for rmany,many years, I am also writing as a drug oou rt judge. Predin s*ry Obsemdouu►. SACPA creates a new sentencing schcme,mandating drug Uvatment in lieu of irrcarccration for num-violent drug possemon offenders. SACPA operates iadeperudeatly of 211 Deferred FAtry of J (DEJ)Penal Code;01000 propsms; I a noa-drug court DEJ PC 1000 progmmir,DEJ PC 1000 drug court pnVwns,' pm-gu tS►plea drug court programs operated pursuant to PC 1000.5. While SACPA eligible affiam are almost identical to PC 1000 oMnscs.SACPA eligible may have significant mer!records. Thus„SACPA is not limited to the same strict statutorily aligf"ble population as PC 1000. SACPA's drug treatri nt is limited to 12 months with the possMity of an addifional 6 mamths of aftercare savices. Ttris is subsuaftially less that the minimum of 18 monOw to a maximum of 3 yen of probstitm supervision required by PC 1000. N SACPA is enecsted,in most cam,PC 1000 thipble de feadau .inchuflag DEJ PC 1008 drug court paKrdelpa'hs and PC 1080 5 pm gailty plea drug cmrt progmts pardeipants,will Go for SACPA rather than PC 1000. SACPA lunates a cumbersome iysfm of pmbation via heat-inp. SACPA establishes a majdmw sentence of 30 days county jail for othirw►fse SACPA eligible derfewknts who h2ic participated is 2 uporate com"of SACPA chug Iraftmot. Spedlle:4bswe�►ati : PC 1210(a.)defines SACPA eligible"ren-violet tom; .am"offeases, SACPA does not include 113641•Iealth&,Safety(H&S)Code,Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, SACPA apparently includes 11370.1 ,Possession of Controlled Substance While Armed With SEP-13-2000 14:45 GCC BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 15103743429 P.11 SACFA analysis`PaW 6 the basis of the probation revocation proceed is a"dirty►"urine tvst„a drag court program mi&bo nquired to use a urine testing procedure diffaeft thea its normal prooeduve. LF—,a drug court P WRM may rtoutimly use a matt read,hared hetld,pramptive testing device to urine test defendants. Query: Would tbre program lgcvre to obtain a oortfytmatoy drug testing laboratory antirlyis in order to present evidence of the dirty urine test at s 'on howing? it is also noted that the SACPA funding vTmsly excludes Amding of"drug testing services of any kuW. (See SACPA,Section 7,HAS 11999.6.) Additional costs of"court admissible:"evidence of drug use,tltr+ough utuNrsded drug testing services could rseptively impact drug court progm os. Section 6:This section of SACPA addresses parolees and for the roast part rmurors the provisions of Sections S. Coinswatt As parolees do not come Wm the court on conduct s wuntmg to parole violations gal=new charges an filed as a result of such conduct,it is unknown how this Section may impact the comrm As Section 6 does not prsohn'bit the filing of now cbuVn against a peproloa,it is posstible that a defendant might be simultaneously sulject to the pmvis as#s of Section S and Section 6. This would also be true for defendants on concu rro t pts "of prvbs t on and parole on July 1,2001,when SACPA would tam of beL It is umclear how the cow"and the Parole Audwity would interact under this situation. Section 7:This section of SACPA creates Substance Abuse TmAment Funding. Comumerse If eawted.SACPA will appropriate SWM from the Genieral Fund for fiscal year 2000.2001. This$60M will apparently be available for distn'bnntio»to coonties via the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs,purmnft to a"Wrr and equitable distninition fornnulst". to permit drug treatment p ograms to be in platy fbr July 1.2001. Ther fur. fvr each of S consecutive fiscal years,$120M would be ser appi opriated.ad distributed.ted.. Is Mies distributed to the counties maty be used to provide mon department services,cow monitoring costs,and miscellaneous costs,MgWng drug testing services of any ldnd. It is not clear why shrug testing serviom have been excluded. As drug testing is r equhvd by Dnp Couur W Key Component a5,and as such testits is jug fisoded by SACPA,tines exclusion of *04ing for drug lasting scrviices rdV41y i®►pacbt drsrg t+sserrt prsogiSM. Note: That does not agpartr to be wwdft in SACPA prohibiting a drug court program $roam receiving SACPA iirndinug. Furdwmwm,it v oWd appear that there is nothing in SACPA " that would prevent a drug court program Thom bew&"otertifuod"as a"drug treatment program"or as"drug treatmenC for SACPA purposes. In addition,SACPA funds can be eased far probation deptrtmew services and court monitoring cats. The dish of SACPA intoes for such would appear to be at the discretion of the county's A.loohol and Drug Program administrator. SEP-13-2000 14:44 CCC BOARD OF SLP VISORS 15103743429 P.10 SACPA ar alys -pap 7 lirurtbers If drug carats operated as a post-ow poet-sentonoe. program that admitted SACPA oligible defendente,deftodants could be subjected to amvh and seizure terms as a condition of probation. (C,f. Courts may not impose seatch and seizure tesrtns for DET PC I ON program participants,as such seatmh sad seixwv twms we no standonly aurtbor>izad. Ferry v Swpertor+C;owt(San Luis Obispo) (1999)73 Cal.App.4th 661.) It is also noted that attempts to have legislation enacted to pe rutit judicial divmWon to imposes fA search and seizure tern for DEJ PC 1104 participants bave been urwuc cessl'tr1. Lastly,if a drug court pn*mm accepted SACPA eligible defendants that are-violent"nt"o under the Federal definitions,the drug court could M rr cam Fedmnsl funding for the . candusdoruit From a drug court perspective:,the following ecru eque of the pump of SACPA,are objectionable: 1. SACPA seems to provide some incentive or reward d for defimdants who continue to use drugs afkw participation in 2 separate courses of SACPA drug treatmart„by establishing a 30 day mraximuar county jail sentence. 2. SACPA conflicts with Drug Courts' Key Compont t#2 by requiring coMested probation revocation hearin^ni tber than permitting a non-adversasia!resolution. 3. SACPA does not fund drug testmg sem on of any loud Drug testing is an 'udwait pant of all drug court programs as required by Drug Courrt'Key Componew 05. 4. SACPA expfessly probibits the imposition of incarowation as a condition of peobation. This would appear to include the use of brief periods ofirrcaTceIatiotr(usually 1-14 days!)as a graduated sumction for Wure to comply with trreab»esrrt S. SACPA excludes custodial drug treatment programs fhom besirrg a SACPA authorized "drug treatment program"or `drug treatment". f. SACPA appears to not favor residential drug treatment programs as"drub treatmear by including" -residential drug treatment"(&v f*afais added)in its de"tion of"drug 7. Ile application of SACPA is ubject to the charging discretion of the pmocutoes offer vomer a thug related misdemeanor can be charged. S. SACPA limits Uvatma d to a maximum of 12 tnosntlrs(with the option of an additional 6 months of aftercam savices). SEP-13-2000 14.43 CCC BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 15103743423 P.09 SACPA a»alysis-psgc 3 DEI PC 1000,including DFJ PC 1000 dug court pmgmtna Why would a SACPA.a l*blc elect DW PC 1000 tmd subject I zoalftenelf to a minimum of 18 months to a nuauianatun of 3 years of probation supervision wben,by doing so,he/she does not earn a SACPA "tou]wr p wok whrieh may qualify him/her for a modmu m 30 dory countyjail sentence is the future? It would probably be itieffbctive assistance of eovasel.wuwpt in cam involving immigration issues end a pre-guilty Plena PC 1000.5 drug court program option,to have a drf+endant participate in DW PC 1000. PC 1210.1W3).This subsection limits SACPA drug treatment to 12 truar►dr with the option of 6 additional months of aftercam services. COMMICNIts While most substNIUM abuse UORUUMt providers would nam dural 12 mmaths of treeft2e nt abould be a minimUM required SACPA imposeg a 12 maw requirement. In addition,especially with a crhrjb !,justice popubSon,ft often woes more than 12 months to mxmssMly complete:s program This is esped&lty tine when MceMM completion of the ttr+e unemt program requires a minimum of 120 to 180 days of clean&W. testing r+osuita at the time of completion. PC 1210.1(0,This subsection describes the viaiatioslrevonr,cation of probation procedures for SACPA Probation. PC: 1210.1(e)(1):This m9necdon provides#fiat ifs defandma is on SACPA probstkm OW probation is uncorked the defendant mny the regher be semtwcaced wiftw regard to the SACPA "no incarraeretI "provision. Thuf6a"ddke"deffixbm*gistennin*WumuooesstWly from SACPA drug treatme=nt,may be;sentenced to state prison W001ding to"attiW sentencing requirements. PC 1201.1(eX3): This subsection sets forth the pion violation/revocanbon procedure for deferAIAM on SACPA probation that violate probawn due to drug related issues. (Sire also SACPA.Section S,PC 1210.1(cX2).) Under PC 1210.1(e)(3).a ddbndsnt may be entitled to 3 full.tonumted probation rwmeatioa hawings before being terminated flrmm treatment and sentence!.. Comment: A statutory right to 3 W,cwtmOd PubItion morn hWdW coWd cute a» undue burden on the entire judiciai sysftm,to itarclude:the venins;the Mars:Clue defems+e 'l- dw probation deportnient. While it may be possible to have a dWbndant admit a violation of prbbRnuoez wfthout conducting a praboMm wvocaton hearing,0 l0WAV of the swMte is"the court MOU oonduct a hearing"to ). Also,if the court accepts an admission of violation witluoat a hauing,it is=b%0wn if the de fbrndant would then still be entitles!to 3 pmber m mon hurinp. The#AYJ9MW Dire=of these contested probataon mon proceedings would be contrit ' r'WC �to D ' � xey component . In addition, if SEP-13-2000 14:42 CCC HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 15103743429 P.08 SACPA analysis-pap 4 PC 1210.1(bX4).This subsection excludes defendaft who MAM drug treatment as a condition of probation. +Commeett It is respecttlly m4wftd that no defendant will refuse drug UvWxwt under SACPA probation,mW=the defendant is offarred some disposition that is viewed by the defendant(or the 's auorney)as brit %vtrs6le than SACPA pwbation; i.e., very limited jail time with very limited probation. This suggestion is based.on SACT?A's sentencing scheme for defendants that bave participated in two separate courses of drug to SACPA(ntaxi®um 30 day oota ty jail since). (Sas SACPA,Section 5, PC 1210.l ftS),discussed below.) - PC 1210.1(b)(5).This subsection defendants that bares potwipsted in two sep u%W courses of drag mem pursuant to SACPA and have been fevnd imanienable to"any and all An=of available drug trea#nwC. Such defendants are,in=opinion, by being subjected to a maximum sentence of 30 days in jetil. Wit: I tlw*that this is they MM tr ubhug aspect of SACPA. I suppose rite of SACRA included this 30 day nips inum sentence on the theory that non vWem drug possession offenders that me una nenable to treabrtentsbould stet be subjected to punisbrment. I care certainly ex►visiom scenarios where dafmdants me not adverse to getting theft SACPA`"ticheet" Punched 2 times,in oar to gwdify for the`dhird times is a charm"sentence of 30 dabs county jail. I ata also of the;opinion that SACRA dAndants,wlro have AdWtbair 2 prior sepamte courses oftcalment pursuant to SACPA,will have an MW time of being f ni d wtame mble to tract,and therefom being subjected to a maximum.seam=of 30 clays county jail. This subsection is mast subject to abuser whom the de fendaut's prior coum of tftft mt was for a I, offense,especially H&S 11534 Under the Infiurence of a Controlled Subsume). Undsar currrcnt law,H&S 11$54 carries a 90 day minimum county jail for the:first offeme+e and impom a 180 clay minimum eauccty jail for a third conviction within 7 years. (See H&S I ISWb).) However,if the H&S 11550 defmndant has prarticiP4ted in 2 Prior so mvu cam of tzeabnent punwmt to SACPA,the defefWwd is sentenced pmrsusmt to PC 1210.1(bX5),M H&S 115 50(b). Of course, *:SACPA erligible"strike"de6ndott who Mets hia%c r SACPA"v'rclmt" punched for 2 separate,HAS 11554 cotrvic001„also ill a 30 day madmum county jail ritence fbr all At= -violent drug possesaictrt offenses. To be fair.PC 1210.I(b)(5)doext not apply to defendants who have the:misfortune of being subjected to prosecution for no** g mimed miwith noir non- violent dW 'era oflemse. (.Sow PC 1210.1(6)('2}, .) Thus,ahrioogh tteeir SACPA "behest"has 2 prior putsches, it will not got tb am to thea 30 day county jail sentence. Note: It is due to the pmvssront oaf PC 1210.1(bXS)drat I bealiew DF i PC 1000 eligible dMAMdasts who are charged with SACPA eligible gffgaM will opt for SACPA pwbation over SEP-13- 14:41 CCC BOARD OF Sr.FERV I SORS 15103?43429 P-07 SACPA anskysis-~3 Notre "Strike"defied Awse"Stn"omviction>a more than 5 years old,bra have trot oomplated the 5 your"wesbote(dura to not having been#'dee of prison custody for S yam),may be eligible for DEJ PC 1000.incluxliutg riJ PC 1000 drug court VMW=k under the authority of Ptople v. Davis(2000)79 Cal.AppAth 251,which hold tt 0 a plea to an offense under DEE PC 1000 is M a conviction for Purposes of"strfibcrw" iog PA&lines. PC 1210.1(bX2):This subsnetka provides that a dehoodant that has boats convicted of any "misderneanor not related to the use of dn*"or any dclopy other than a ar:orrrviolent drug pr iwn offense in the same proceeding is indigba frxr SACPA probedon. Coatrrumt: This exclusion smW lead to the practice of charging all available non-drug rebated min all neer-violent dng possession IXOSO tdi0M in an 8ftMPt to make a daferr:dant" `bk for SACFA mon. If such misdemeanan are chi,to make it de lbndant SACPA inoliglblo.Ibm mcne dedeandaa o ami*proceed eed to jury arial for dw itpftss PWVM of avoiding co»viction for the nondrug volated off. This situ i ors would `�impact the courts. Of course,if the jury on beconinjamnaW with defendants proceeding to trial to avoid a conviction on a tree.-drug related misdemeanor oftimse, e.g. Vehicle Cade 14601 (giving on a Suspended License)offenses,the prose rotors rmigbat DO chwV such oflenses gg milt dismiss such offenses on the eve oft iai. Dhotis.. As charging discretion is the province of each county's District Aturmay,one would exped ate application of the audmity to pmoseaute am drug related rniad or of%tu me,Vay similar to the disp a*katim of the auttbvrity to cbwp"striW priors in all felony prrcvtiomr. Furthest: Nondrug related tnisdemeancxs could also be charged as a bargaung chip and an"and around"other SACPA provisions. For example,under SACPA.,"chug u art went program"deo►M include urea-rmrtody treatment peon. (Se*SACPA,Section 4,PC 1210(b).) Thune„a non-drug related tnisrdemroat:cn ofd could be claursed and a defendant could be told that this tnisde�would be dismissed Lf the defendut r plete s an is orient program am to being coauv eW of the tion-violent drug possession oma. Anotlrer scenario would be to agree to dismiss the�meancrr if tha deft audant complain a lengthy residential are atarueat program gjgT to being caonvicted of the non-violent chug roux ofyensq,as SACPA-drug tlt ment"only mcludes'ImbW residential drug treWna t. (Sae SACPA,Section 4,PC 12100•) PC 1210.1(b)(3):This subsection excludes doi andants wholm it furMIrm while committing any otherwise wa-vioiam drug possession offanw. Comment: As all conduct involving the M of a ffirceum would Probably fault in tht~ ebusing of offenses tnalm thus defendant ineligible for 3A.C'PA mora pursuant to PC 1210.1(b)(2).,affirm.this subsection will seldom be an issue. SEP-13-20M 14:41 CCC BOFM OF 9JPERJISURS 15103743429 P.06 Load Fid,wbere the possession of&D firaarm is not ase illel:gal. SACPA ururlyus-pap 2 PC 12 10(h)clefitm'"drug treatment proymni"or"drug treatmes a to mean a lig ,UMM d community drug ttORIMMA program- Comment: er°C t» "Licensed and/or certif W are S,c wiisc defined. (cf. PC 1000(c).requiring eaearti$u:+Idioo of R„1000 prams by the county drug pr plUt adoainis# tOr.) Minimum Aerogram resxiw 11be:O 11s are. a rrblished. Cf`1`=PC 1211,establishing minimum program reseluireI e lw for PCI preys. However,SACPA"s tbndm$rystan dictates mon of SACPA treatment ftK%from tires Stam Depa tmendt of Alcohol and Thug Programs to "countift". (See SACPA Section'7, 11999.6 H&S.) AWANY•the,COUSAY drug PMV admirristrstor will tsve some ovenight over flie distribution of treatment funds and would only distribute fir&to"COMMOr U=Mmur pr+ugmnrs. PC 1210.1(a)rrandMs that all SACPA eligible dclendsM.not cxcsludesd by PC 1210.1(b),upon conviction"1W resoeive probation, The oaurt may M impose ltlrtrfg:N' D as a condition of probation. Caaotments 7U inabitity to ire incarow-Won as a condition of'probation tupam the systan of graduated sane dow eupkqed is attest drag two t PrOSWIMS. Most ft&courtpmW=simpowbrWperiodxof , troaradon,generally f m 1 to l4 days•as a sanction for failure to comply with thug court program rmquir is While a dafmdant on SACPA probation could be ordered to participate in a drug court program ss a condition of probation and could be required to submit to drug ftsft and search and seizure term as part Of a drug court program.it is doubtful that such a defendant could be s*ect>erd to a sanction of incarceration as pan of the drag court program. An option that Mi&be available to the drug court juldge would be to imposes a sanction of' not to wwood 5 dirt's,pursuant to the cornter apt povmn to forth in Cade of Civil Procedure(CCP') 1209(aX$)and CCP 1218. 1 believe that drug cow judges in fearYidrug courts rely an ouch contempt power to impose incarceration sanctions. PC 1210.1(b)excludes curtain defendants.charged with SACPA clillble QMMW&f-Om Psub of SACPA probation.as follows: PC 1210.1ft1):This subsection actually crams a 5 year"wasbote period.similar to the stmadar+d PC 667.5(State Prim Prk r T3rnlsrune:ean+eat).for ,•eiwt a ndanteL T enrerdbre,only "s&*O"Wendu is the haft V&cotapictod the 5 y+earr"washout"are i&*for SACPA pr%6PPIO gid.,On. tr [Mesa thea"strike"prior was it ra ddential burglary,all"striker derlbe>* is would be vial offer uWer flaw Fb&xal guideline. Thus,altbougli statutorily eligible under SACPA after flee 5 year"wasLmW.most'"driW de&udaift would remain lne Wbk for pa*`-Lurgi Is a dreg esaart progn m receivhig Fesda ul firradi r% SEP-13-2000 14-4? CCC BOFM OF SLFER,►ISO 15103?43429 P.12 SACPA ana *5-peke 8 9. By gsppUvdng DE3 PC IOW.SACPA will draw eligible participuta away ftow Drug Court Partnership Act(DCPA)find DW PC 1 WO dmmg court program 10. Most of what would be aoarnnpli rl by primp of SAGA(aibot rwt the proposed f rig)could havt bow achieved by arnetuflng DE,I PC I OW,to"puO the eligOAt population o(participantL Such an am t to U.lsl PC 1000,oTanding eligibility c rites*would have avoided do objections txftd above. �*+err+*+*******+�*�+�swt**w****s**s*+r*+�*+r***+a�w+r�,r+s#*t**war****rss*s*+s+�wr*w*r►*s**+�*r **.+**mow****�r+r�r+res****s***►.r****�r**+e+�**r+r�r*err****►****t*r�*«�t***r�**#***r�v�* Submitted by:Harlan G. Groom= Superior Court Judge Crime Cosm Cnuttty Richnx3r4 CA 94815 SEP-14-2000 09:36 CCC BOARD OF SUPERVISORS iSIO3743429 P.02 b AN AMTALYSIS OF THE "SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND CRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2000" By na California Marrvtic Officm Apocsatwx and 77m California District Attorneys Azociatios INTRODUCTION The California Narcotic Officers Association and the California District Attorneys Association have analyzed the '"Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Art of 2000" in order to provide some insights into its impact on public safety For reasons we will set forth below, the impact on public safety will be prcAbundly negative. Further, the initiative has the potential to dramatically increase the number of cases that go to trial, place an extremely heavy burden an district attorneys and the judiciary, and significantly undermine the efficacy of drug treatment as a viable strategy for helping addicts. In addition, the initiative will impact California employers. These conclusions were reached after an exhaustive analysis of the initiative's provisions.Whcn we begun this cicrcaisc, we wcrc hopeful that the initiative would serve as a vehicle to provide needed resources for treatment programs—,something we have long supported. OVERVIEW OF THE INITIATIVE Section d of the initiative declares that the initiative may be cited as the "Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000." To the extent the initiative adds crimes involving those that use,possess, Ownparr or arc under the influence of controlled substances,the first part of the title is an accurate deacaiptor of what is to follow. However, the second portion of the tirle "...C:rimc Prevention Act of 2000" bears no connection to the actual contents of the initiative and is not an accurate description of the initiative's substantive provisions. Section 2 of the initiative contains its "findings and declarations." The first of those findings declares that "substance abuse treatment is a proven public safety and health measure. This general statement tines not define the type of trcaawnt prow ok that constitute a "proven public safety and health measure." The second finding is ostially a restatement of the first— the promoters of the initiative alleging that "community safety and health arc promoted and taxpayer dollars are saved when nonviolent perms SEP-14- 09:36 CCC BOARD OF SWERV15ORS 15103743429 P.03 Convicted of drug pcAuwAsion or drug use arc provided appropriate community-based treatment instead of incarceration."As we shall see later in our analysis, the substantive provisions of the itutiat ive make litdc diffierentisdon between "nonrviole:ne persons and those who art: "vioicnt,"nor is there any effort to set guides as to what cmutituted -appropriate community-based tmarment." The final finding references the Arizona initiative passed in 1996-w-we arc assuming the promoters are re(erring to Proposition 200 passed by Arizona voters that year. The promoters seek to equate their initiative with the Arizona initiative. In fact there:are significant differences betwccn their initiative and Arizona."s Propcanu an 200.The tint of thssc findings will also note the placing of the quotation marks when the promoters Mlerence the Arizona Suprcm t Gaunt"Report.Card" on the Arizona law. The promoters quotc the "report card" as saying the Arizona laws impact is a*rtsulting in safer communities and more substance abusing probationers in recovery." As a continuation of•that sentence, the promoters go on outside the quotation ,marks with the: unsubstantiated assertion that the Arizona initiative 'itis already saved state taxpayers millions of and is helping more than 76%sof program participants to remain drug free." The reader should not confuse the promoters unsupported assertions with the actual comments of the Arizonas Supreme Court. Section 3 of the initiative contains the "Purpose and Intent" clauses of the initiative. Ile second stated purpose alleges that this initiative will "halt the wasteful expenditure of hundreds sof millions of dollars each year on the incarceration --and re-incarceration --of non-violent drug usen who would be better served by community-based treatar nt." In fact, given th+c pmwisions of current law that provide for drug diversion of many persons convicted of drug possession offenses, this st2wd purpose suggests in intent of the promoters to go well beyond those who are convicted of simple" drug possession. Absent from the promoters'assertion is any evidcnor suggesting that .hundreds of millions sof daollare are spent annually to incarcerate drug;users. Section 4 of the initiativc is the definitional section. This is the first section of the initiative that actually purports to make substantive changes in the law. From this point forward, our analysis will reference the actual proposed code sections .contemplated by the initiative. Proposed Penal. Code Section 1210(a)defines a "nein-violent drug possession o ense" as the "unlawful possession,use,or transportation for prrsorW use of any controlled substance identified in Hoo h and Safety Code sections 11054, 11055, 11456, 11457 or 11458 or the oflense of being under the influence of a controlled substance in violations of Health and SW*ry Code section 11550." SEP-14-2000 09:37 ccc BOARD OF SUPERVISORS iS103743429 P.04 The massive scope of this definition is ultimately a matter of policy for voters to decide, but there arc some drafting issues with thissection that art quite serious. The concept of"trangxwtaticm of controlled substances" is codified d in Health & Sa ty Code sections 11352 and 11379. Neither of these sections has the concept of transportation '"for personal use."Without saying so directly,the promoters have severely limited the uwuportatioitn sections of current law. A defendant charged with transportation of controlled substances under either of these two sections will now litigate the issue of whether the nwisportation was"for persooxmal use."The uninretnded consequence of this section will be to add to the number of trials on this issue. Proposed Penal !::rade section 1210(b)defines "drug treatment program" or "drug treatment" to mean a "licensed mWor yr certified community drug treatment program which may include one or mom of the Wowing: outpatient treatment,half-way house treatment, narcotic replacement thtaapy, drug education or prcvcntion courses and/or limited inpatient or residential drug trcatment as needed to address special detoxification or relapse situations of severe dependence." Two qucsdoras are raised by dtis delinirion. Pimr, the reference "licensed andlor certified" irMtes the question"by whom?" is the state going to license drug treatment progerots, or is that going to be left to local entities?Since the laanguagc also adds the phrase "and/or certified," does that suggest that a grogram might not be licensed but might be certified? If so, by whom? VVouid the certification be by a trade association sof programs, or by a govcrramcntal entity,or by both,or by either? Will there be programs that have been denied a license (or had a license revoked), but have been certified by a trade association of some type? Who will oversee licensing and certification of these programs? Since the initiative is silent on all of these issues, it is imprAWble to gauge the level of licensing accountability, if any, that will be contemplated by the initiative. Second, missing from the definitional language is any grounding,in tro tmcnt programs that arc succrssfeal. Instead, the definitional langaaagc is so ripen-ended that it invites all manner of programs thtt describe themselves as "txcatment programs" to fit under this definition --•-including a sch piss as phone counseling, internet chat rooms or cassetwe recordings. if the definition sof what constitutes a "treatment program" is a vague one, the definition of what is not a treatment prop=is very specific. The language: of section 1210(b) specifically cmdudcs any drug trcatmcnt progratne eoffcred in a prison or jail facility. Thus,in-custody programs designed to assist inmates who have drug problems--and designed to decrease the chaxaces of their re-offending—are excluded frorn the definition sof treatment programs and will be denied the funding contemplated by the initiative. Paw a SEP--14--2000 09:37 CCC BOAM OF SJPEWISORS 15103743429 P.05 Proposed Penal Code section 1210(c)defines the "successfid completion of treatment," The section shutes that it"means that a defendant who has had drug treatment imposed as a condition of probation has completed the prescribed course of drug treatment eat ment and,as a result,there is reasonable muse to believe that the defendant will not abuse controlled substances in the future." This definition appears to exclude from any definition of"success&l trcatm+ent" all parolees who arc entitled to treatment render this initiative. The definition refers to defendants who have had "thug treatment imposed as a condition of probation." Pawl=have conditions of parole,not probation. Thos the initiative purports to set standards for successful treatment by persons convictrcd of erg-called "note-violent drug possession'offenws, but evidently leaves to the discretion ofunnamcd person or persons ars to wheel=or not a parolee has successivlly completed treatment. Proposed Penal C.crde section 1210($)defines a "ntisderraearwr not related to the use of drugs." The definitional section states that this phrase means a "misdemeanor that does not involve (1) the simple possession or use of drugs or drug paraphernalia, acing present where drugs arc used,or failure to register as a drag offender or (2) any activity similar to those listed in (d)(1) wive." This section is not what it appears to be. Under this section, defense counsel could argue that a defendant who stole some jeans from a► department store,led the police con a vehicle pursuit,all for the purpose of wiling the jeans to support his drug habit was not committing atw "misdemeanor not related to the use of drupe." Ccrtainly defense counsel's cast would be stronrgrrifit could be shmm that the defendant was in actual possession of controlled substances at the time of the crime.This section has the mischievous potential to permit dc&=counsel to argue that virtually any misdemeanor was a ' F .111rarmr that was related to the use of drop. Section 5 of the initiative, after concluding the definitional section,adds as proposed Penal Code section 1210.1 that provides its subdivision (a) that "except as provided by subdivision (b), any person cmvimd(emphasis added) of a non-violent drug possession offense shall receive probation." Tlc ruder should note the departure fium current law Under current law, a defendant must generally plead guilty to be eligible to enter a diversions program.However, defendants who are convicted at trial arc zw t eligible for diversion. Current:law has the requirement of a guilty pica for the very gid reason that it makes therapeutic.sense. Profmsionals in the treatment community have informed us that an essential clement of a person's rc wcry in fear darn to albeit their conduct. h defendant who has made that admission via a guilty pleas is s far better candidate for recovery than is one who remains in denial. r.M a SEF'-14- 09-38 CCC BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 15103?43429 P.06 The initiative,however, dispenses with the therapeutic professional's doctrine that all--- sful treatment is dependent on an admission of conduct. Under the initiative, a defendant who has been arrested for tz-ausporting crack ante a schoolyard could go to trial., be convicted, and still be eligible ibr "an appropriate drag treatment program" even though there is no evidence ofany adtnision of conduct deemed by therapeutic Professionals to be so necessary for recovery! Dekni r counsel would be remiss if they did not advise their clients to go to trial fust and attempt to obtain an acquittal,since their client would atilt be eligible fix "an appropriate drug treatment program- if he/she were to be convicted. The increase in the number of drug cases that would gra to trial is simply incalculable. The balance of subdivision (a) of Penal Code section 1210.1 directs the court to "require participation in and completion of an appropriate drug treatment program." The initiative also says that the court "may" impose conditions of probation participa- tion in vocational r=aining,family counseling,literacy training and/or community service." The court is expressly prohibited from ordering incarceration as a condition of probation. As the reader will see later in this analysis,vocational training,family counseling and literacy training are all eligible for funds under the funding mechanism contemplated by the initiative. Subdivision (a) also says that the court "may" require a convicted defendant-r- who is reasonably able to do so--to "contribute to the cost of their ower placement in a drug treatment program_" Here again, the fmmers of the initiative have given short shrift to the views of therapeutic pro&ssionals,who have stated that part of a person's recovery is to require them to take ownership of their recovery program. This is done by requiring them to pay for the cost of the program---much as is currently required of defendants who are sent to DUI programs. Instead, this Initiative permits the court to find that the defendant can afford to pay for trcatmcant, but still excuse him/her from doing so. Subdlvlsion (b) of proposed renal Code section 1210.1 purports to enumerate those daasea of defendants who are not eligible for the "probation plus treatment" model proposed by the initiative. As the reader will see, however,there arc scrious draft ng problems with this section which cetively make some very problematic chanters eligible to take shelter under the initiative. SubdivWon (b)(1) excludes dekndants who had been convicted of one or more serious or violent fdonics.Well,not really. If'the "neon-violent drug possession olfcrrac" occurred more than live yearn after the defendant was out of prison, oomuTed more than five years aftr the defendant.wars convicted of any other felony (other than a non-violent drag possession offense that doesn't count anyway) or occurred mare than five years SAU the defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor that involved physical Injury or the threat of physical injury to another person, the ftwm SEP-14-20M 09:39 CCC BOARD OF SLFERVISORS 15103743429 P-07 defendant is still able to take shelter under the initiative. In effect, a defendant who had bean released from prison on January 21, 1995 after serving time for his/her second violent felony,who subsequently was convicted of transporting crack cocaine onto a schoolyard,would be eligible for"probation plus trcazttucut" pursuant to this initiative. This amounts to as significant weakening of California's "Three Strikes" law. Subdivision (b)(2) purports to exclude any defendant who, "in addition to one or more non-violent drug possession ofknscs," has been convicted of any felony or of a misdemeanor not related to the use of drugs. As the reader will recall, the definition of what constitutes a "misdemeanor not related to the use of drugs" is something that is subject to evasion. Although poorly warded,this section would scan is contemplate a fact situation where the defendant was convicted of the other crimes and the -non-violent drug possession offense" in the same txufsactiron,since under subdivision (b)(1),d6cndsants whose recon-violent felony convictions or whose life-threatening misdemeanors arc more than five years old sate eligible for the proton under the initiative. Subdivision (b)(3) is among the mom confusing in the entire initiative. Subsection (b)(3)(A) purports to exclude f vm the initiative anyone who "while: using a firearm, unlanrvftilly possesscs;any amount of(1) a substance containing either cocaine base, ccocainc,hcroin,mcthamphetaminc, or(2)a liquid, non-liquid,plant substance, or hand rolled cigarette,containing phencyclidine. Subsection (b)(3)(B)purports to exclude those who "while using as firearm (are l unlawfully under the influence of cocaine blase,cocaine,heroin,nxetliamphetuninc or phencyclidine." Again, this 'exclusion" is not as all encompassing as would first appear. A defendant who is "using" a firearm while in possession or under the influence of designer drugs or anabolic steroids cannot be incarcerated; instead,they may obtain the "probation plus treatment" contemplated by the initiative. Subdivision (b)(5) excludes defendants who have two convictions for non-violent drug poascnioon of macs,and have pu-dcipawd in two separate courses of drug t=tment pursuant to subdivision (a)and are f mrd by the court by '"dear and convincing" evidence,to be unauncxaable to any aacui all forms of available drug treatment." Notwithstanding any other provision of I&% the nisxitnum scnWXJCc for nwch a defendant ,shall be 30 days in jail. The likelihood is haat very few will be excluded under this section. Subdivision (c)of proposed renal Code section 1210.1 provides for the timetable for the drug treauncrita programs. Within 7 days of the imposition of probation, the probation departanent is required to notify the drug treatment provider designated to provide the drug treatment, The treatment provider then has 30 days to prepare s treatment plan and fbrward it to the probation department_ The treatment provider is required to provide quarterly progress reports on the defendant to the probation department:. It should be noted that these rnandattted deadlines would place a considerable burden on already overburdened probation departments. It is also noteworthy that, Pura N f + */1 li R R •.i •11�+ q •...} WV Ift-141A +M • ++t•� ♦ # # 44 E= E ♦ # • [ +. R r -.t:++ E • • t+. x4is • t • t W • fes. ■# 1 # 4 M ■ } R • • t R • f • R R f + M 4 R IM R M r M I • i ,.f- M•M • SEP-14-20M 013:40 CCC BOARD OF SUPERV I SORS 15103743429 P.09 concept of"substantial compliance" with probation conditions, of course, implies that the defendant's probation record has specific instances of noncompliance. Undcr Section 1210.1 (d)(1), however, such noncompliance will not be a bar to setting aside the defimdant's conviction,dismissal of the indictment or information and a finding that the underlying arrest nrvcr occurred. Scc:tion 1210.1 (d)(1) theft provides that,subject to certain specific provisions enumerated in Sections 1210.1 (d)(Z) and (d)(3),the defendant"shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disat ilitics resuldfug from the offs a of which he or she has been convicted." Section 1210.1 (d)(3) deals with employment, licensing,and other benefits. The first paragraph section provides that after the indictment or informaticm is dismissed, the defendant may indicate in response to any question concerning his or her prior criminal record that he or she was not arrested or convicted for the predicate drug offense. The paragraph goes an to say that a record pertaining to an sweat or conviction where there has been "successful completion" of a drug treatment program shall not be used in any way that "could result in the denial of any employment, benefit, license, or certificate." This paratgmph also provides that its guarantees are to be modified by paragraph two of Section 1210.1 (d)(3). Turning w paragraph two, we find that the arrest and conviction on which the d ndant's probation was based may be recorded by the Department of justice and disclosed in response to any peace officer application request or to a request by any lave enforcement agency. This paragraph also provWs that dismissal of the inibrrnation or indictment under this section does not relieve the defendant of his/ her obligation to answer truthfully in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for"public office, for a position as a peace officer pursuant to Penal Code Section 530,licensurt by any state or local agency, for contracting with the California State I.eattory,or for purposes of jury service." RrAding Section 1210.1 (d) in its entirety,it is apparent that the provisions of this, section are profound and deeply disturbing. For example, a witness in a trial may answer in the negative when questioned by counsel as to whether or not he/she has been arrested or convicted of a felony----effectively creating tete notion of legally permitted perjury• Similarly, applicants for positions such as school but drivers or airline pilots,surgeons applying for admission privileges at a hospital,persons applying to %Nxk in a pharmacy are aarctatg the ZKORY jcrb applic.aats who maty simply deny that they have any drug,arrests or convictions. Although Section 1210.1 (d)does require that applicants for "public office" and peace officer positions answer truthfully if asked if they have any felony drug arrests or SEP-14- 09-*41 CCC BOARD OF SJPERU I 15103x'43429 P.10 convictions,disclosure is the only disability placed on those applicants. Indeed, the language of tate law releasing the defendant from "all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense" and the language that says the record relating to the arrest or conviction may not "be used in any way that could result in the denial of any employment,benefit, license,or certificate" is not limited by the disclosure requirement of this section! In effect, employers are prohibited from using these types of felony arrests or convictions to prevent someone from driving a sncotA bus,flying a plane, driving a truck, being a surgeon, bccoming a peace officer, or holding any other type of state or local license. In addition to the questionable wisdom of permitting convicted drug users to drive school buses, these prrx Wons act to undercut virtually cvcry employer`s ability to insure a safe workplace. One can only speculate as to the cmnt workers compensation premiums may rise as a result of Section 1210.1 (d)of the initiative. Section 1210.1 (e) deals with the issue of violation of probation. Subsccdon (c)(1) provides that if probation is revoked pursuant to this subdivision,the defendant may be Inca rccrated pursuant to otherwise applicable law without regard to the provisions of this wzdon. Subsection (e)(2) indicates that the defendant is subject to having his/her probation revoked if they arc arrested for an offense that is not a "nose-violent drug possession ofknse" or if they violate a "nott-drug related condition of probation." Although the initiative defines "neon-violent drug possession toMnsc",it does not define "non-drug related condition of probation." Definition of dais language will have to await the outcome of litigation. Subsection (e)(3) oudines thaw circumstances where a defendant would be subject to having probation revoked after being arrested for a "non-violent drug possession offense" or by violating a so-called 'drug-related condition of probation." For the first such offense or violation, the probation may only be revoked if the state-- presuniably the prosecutor, although the law would then be silent on the burden placed on the probation department should they initiate revocation proceedings ---proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant pose$a danger to the safety to others. This will nuJw revocation hearings into full fledged trials as both parties bring in witnesses to testify as to the defendant's safety —or lack thereof—to others. Defendants who violate probation a second time by either being arrested for a "non-violent drug possession offtnec"or by violating a "drug-rclatcd condition of probation," will have their probation revoked if tate sate proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant poses a danger to the aafety of others or is unamenable to drug treatment. In considering whether the defendant is unamenable to treatment, the court may consider whether the defendant has committed a "serious" r%Wq SEP-14-2 09:43 CCC BOARD OF SLFERVISORS 15103743429 P.11 violation of rules at the drug treatment program, `*repeatedly" violated program rules so as to -inhibit" his ability to *fimcdon in the program," or has "continually refused to participate in the program." Defendants who violate probation a d d time may have their probation revoked if the court finds that they have in fact engaged in the violative conduct. Secthm 6 of the initiative purports to add a new section 3063.1 to the Penal Code. This section provides that,subject to cerin enumerated d cxccptons,parole may not lac suspended or revoked where a defendanr commirs a -non-violent drug possession offense" or violate*any "drug-related condition of parole." b utrcad,the "Parolt Authority" is dircetded to require the parolee to participate in an appropriate drug treatment program.Vocational ttraining, family counstUng and literacy traisting may also be imposed as additional parole conditions. Those parolees who can afrord to pay for their treatment "may" be required to do set. These ptrwisions do not apply to parolees who have been convicted of one or more serious or violent fetlonie s,any parolee who commits out or more non-violent drug possession offense& and is found to have concurrently committed a misdemeanor not related to the use of drugs,or any felony, nor docs it apply to any parolee who rcfir<se:s drug treatment. Given this language, one could infer that persona who are on parol: for felonies that are outside the scope of Penal Code Section 667.5 or 1192.7 that do not involve the "concurrent commitment" of a non-violent drug possession enffensc will be able to avoid having their parole:m coked. This represents a significant duninutum of the ability to hotel parolees accountable. The reader will note that a parolee who violates a "drug-related ,condition of parole:" must be placed in treatment,and cannot have:fus/her parole revoked. Since the law dares not define -drug-related condition of parole," this provision has the potential to boa judicially expanded in cmys that are not yet calculable_ The prcMsions with respect to those circumatance:s in which a parolee may have his/her parole violated are laid out in Penal Code Section 30613.1. (d). Parolees who arc arrested for an o &nw other than a non-violent drug possession offense, or who violate a "nein-drug Mated condition of parole," are subject to revocation. The issue of what constitutes a -non-drug related condition of parole"will be the subject of intense and spirited litigation. Parolees who ane arrested Jbr a non-violent drug possession offenses, or who violate a "drug-related condition of parole" msy have their parole revoked if it is proven that they pose a danger to the safety of others. Parolees who violate their parole a second time either by being arrrrrAt+crd fvr a non-violent drug possession offense or by violating, a drug-related condition of parole may have dwir parole revoked if the parole violation is provem, rape to ♦ • • • • i # # # it # ♦ • • � • • ► ► s R • t• w t s" a ♦ ♦ • • a ♦ 4 R off 6 If M ! F i R ,'.i M11 Y:. R ♦ + . R. •i R A : • 4 ♦ • ; 9 f VIAi f fA&I# N M • '# • f • * • • rtJ Ir i • • RSR r •t SEP--14- 09:45 CCC BOARD OF SLIPERVISORS 15103?43429 x".13 possession violations and subst ice abuse treatment caseload, as determined by the department as necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act." In other words, the ultimate manner in which these funds arc to be distributed to counties will be resolved in some type of implementing legislation. This section also gives authority to the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs to reserve a portion of the fiend to pay for direct contracts with drug treatment wxvicc providers in counties or mgions where the dcpartment has made a determination that existing programs cannot adequately meet the demand. No entity is permitted to supplant funds From any existing funds used for substance abuse trcatawnt. Section 11999.7 requires that community drug treatment programs agree to rmak,c their facilities subject to valid local government zoning ordinances and developme:nr agreements. It is unclear whether or not this would permit local government to have any control over the siting of these conuuunity-based programs. Under current law, for example, local govcmfflcnt has no control eaver the siting of residential group home that has six or fewer live-in residents. Presumably, drug ttesatmcut programs would be permitted to operate in single-family residential areas under the same terms. Section 11999.9 provides for an "amival evaluation process."The Department of Alcohol, and Drug Programs is directed to conduct in annual study to "evaluate the effectiveness and fananc3al impact of the programs that arc funded pursuant to the requirements of this Act." 'Thu section directs the study to include --,but not be limited to—a study of the implementation process, review of"lower incarceration oasts," reductions in oxime, reduced prison and fail construction,reduced welfare costs,the adequacy of funds appropriated,and any other impacts or inue±s the department can identify." Massing f om these directives is any direction to evaluate the increased burdens can the judicial system. More important, these directives do not include any provisions fear auditing the various prograrns that would be using state funds to operatic. This cmisssion is a quite scrip s one.The twk of mean ngfiil audits—particularly when vete considers the very loose definition of"reatmmnt prop="®is a prescription for fraudulent behavior. Section 11999.10 creates an "outside evaluation process." The Department is authorized to set aside $600,000 annually for a "long-term study" to be conducted by a public univetsity in Caliibmia aimed at "evaluating the cf£ectiveness and financial impact of the programs which are funded pursuant tea the requirements of the Act." The reader should keep in mind that this is not an audit of the various programs. It appears to be duplicative of Section 11999.9':contemplated evaluations. Section 11999.11 directs counties to report to the statue detailing the numbers and characteristics of client-participants served as a result of funding provided under the initiative. Again, there are no provWons for auditing the individual programs. is SEP-14-2000 09.46 CCC BOPM OF SUPERVISORS 15103743429 P.14 Section 11999,12 finally references audits. It gives the department the authority to annually audit the cxpcnditures trade by any counry with funds provided by the Act. There is no provision to audit the individual programs. Simon S provides that the provisions of the Act will become drective on July 1, 2001,unless otherwise provided within the body of the initiative. Seed=9 of the initiative provide- that it may only be amended by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Ugislature. The amendments may only be in f irtheeran►ce of the Act And consistent with its pub Presumably, legislation to sct in place an audit procedure for the individual treatment providers would require a two-thirds vote. It might also be argucd that all legislation govcrning narcotic laws,Parade procedures as weU as legislation purporting to define with more precision what constitutes a "non- drug rrJated offense" would all be subject to the same two-thirds vote requitement. Section 10 its the severability clause of the act. J—A lett tz TO: Board of Supervisors , Contra 'FROM: Supervisor John Gioia, District 1 Costa County DATE: September 19, 2000 SUBJECT: CALIFORNIA STATE PROPOSITION 36 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION REMMMENDATI01SS ADOPT a position in OPPOSITION to Proposition 36 (the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000) on the November 2000 ballot, which mandates drug treatment in lieu of incarceration for non-violent drug possession offenders. BACKGROUND Proposition 36 (SACPA) creates a new sentencing scheme, mandating drug treatment in lieu of incarceration for non-violent drug possession offenders. However, Proposition 36 is misleading since it effectively decriminalizes heroin, crack cocaine, PCP and many other illegal substances. The Board of Directors of the California Association of Drug Court Professionals has voted to oppose Proposition 36 since they believe that Prop 36 hurts legitimate drug treatment programs that work, including California's successful drug courts. The California Narcotic Officers Association and the California District Attorney's Association have concluded that Prop 36: "has the potential to dramatically increase the number of cases that go to trial, place an extremely heavy burden on district attorneys and the judiciary, and significantly undermine the efficacy of drug treatment as a viable strategy for helping addicts." Attached are two analyses of Prop 36 — one prepared by the California Narcotic Officers Association and California DA's Association and one by Judge Harlan Grossman (one of our own drug court judges). CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER SEP-13-2000 14:40 CCC HOARD OF SUPERV t SIRS 15103743429 P.05 Hadlan 0. Superior Court Judge antra Costal County Richmond,California May 18,2000 Re: Substance Abuse and Crime Pnsvefton Act(SACPA)of 2000 Initiative Dear Colleagues in Criminal Justice and Subsumce Abuse . I am writing a personal analysis of SACPA. SACPA will be on the November,2000 Ballot. If enacted, SACPA will take effect July 1,2001. I am writing as someone who has be=conmned about substance abuse and t witrment issues in the criminal justice field for many,many years, t am also writing as a drug court judge. Preliminary Observations: SACPA crafts a new sentencing scheme.mandaUng drug treatment in lieu of imcwte ration for non-violent drug possession offaxiers. SACPA operates ' atly of all Defcrrcd Bntry of Judgment(DBl)Penal Cade(PC) 1000 programs, 1 e, non-drug court DBI PC 1000 programs;DE1 PC 1000 drug,court ' pre-Vilty plena drug court WWams operated Pursuant to PC 1000.5. While SACPA ealigrbla gff=M aro almost identical to PC 1000 off,SACPA eligible ACfMXk=may have significant criminal reoonb. Thus,SACPA is not limited to the same strict statutorily eligible population as PC MO. SAC A's drug tiv*tment is limited to 12 Moretti with the possibility of an additional 6 moths of aftercare rcare services. This is subswitially less that the minimum of 18 months to a maximum of 3 years of probation supervision required by PC 1000. if SACPA is ardoted.in most asm,PC 1000 01401e de , Including DEJ PC 1000 drug court Participants and PC 1000.5 pre- guilty plat drug eaurt mea participants,will opt for SACPA ranter than PC 1040. SACPA creates a cumbersome system of probation violationhe:vocgoon hearinp. SACPA establishes a MANiMM sentance,of 30 days county jail for otlsemse SACPA eliglble deftd&nts who have paxticipatad in 2 separate caouras of SACPA drug UfttmeM. spedtle Observations: PC 1210(a)defines SACPA eligible"non-violent drug possessioe offensgs. SACpA floes not include 11364 Hea hh& Safety(H&S)Code.Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. SACPA apparently includes 11370.1 H&S,Possession of Costiulled Substance Wlrila Armed With .! t* 1 •:j1 •j •1 1 `CAVLO is#1 t!""s t # ++. a # • III ` # # 1 *• • • '! '.t11 1 eR # •'• ►•'Ifill (,•' s! ti • A #ISI 1 -R •1 .-, Y I aS ► # # .-'! A # 1 ! # t r # • #,A I ►- ♦Y Sr !. • 11. ♦i 'tat)19*1111 Toll ./t#1,41111 s 141. # • ,1 1. i.r i ► • t a 1 t s .t .'#,r �# •i •t#t # 11 I..i.+• ♦ .# v a # , rs a If •t 1 ♦ • A 1 # -1 R 11.:x- 41 1 1 M :R IA #' A ! Y fi A ► Y'.'♦ i # #.'.-.; 4'A• f UAW ITT S • i..t • A # • .s�• _ • # :. .. - • !t1 11 t 7174-L IA •t i 11 r • +t I •1 .1 ♦ f I �S • ! #. { At 'If j a.1# # • M. 1 • - A' A e' 4fr _tr •.: i `. ,.## 1 •1 9 r, •tt SI t!t �' f t i i t t - Y'! tS #a.' • ! - _a • -•. • • ..1 • f ..#.... - f .1 1 ♦.-..q.. i ! ♦i ! # i'1 ti ♦A..i i.' .. •1 ;.# � r -(il ! 1 ! # •.# � f # IR A... '.1 11 • R 1 a # 11 41 i t i Y #.# � • 'a SEP-13-2000 14044 CCC BOARD OF SUPERVIS'OR5 15103743429 P.10 SACPA analysis 7 Furthert If drug courts operated as a post-plait,post`senterwe,probation prop=that admitted SACPA thip'ble defendants,defendants could be subjected to search and seizure to ms as a condition of poobartion. (Cf. Courts may not impose search and Winue term for DFJ PC I1W program particip wts,as such search sod sonn terms we no stanutcsrily mAborind. Terry v. Swperiar Corea tie Luis Obispo) (1999)73 CsLAppAth 661.) It is also nOWd that attempts to have w0slation enacted to pectuit judicial disaction to impose f&search and wizure torn for DE7 PC 1000 participants titre been urauccessM. Lardy,if a drug court prograsn accepted SACPA eligUble defendants that are"violent"offbodecs under the Federal definitions,the drug court could W receive Federal funding for the prograzn. CermeJeslOoi: From a drug court perspective,the following ccuni of the passage of SACPA arc objectionable. 1. SACPA seems to provide some incentive or r+ev4W for defendants who continue to use drugs after participation in 2 separate courses of SACPA drug treatment,by establishing a 30 day =W dMurn county jail sentence. 2. SACPA conflicts with Drug Courts' lacy Component#2 by requiring coMested probabior revocation hearings,rather than permitting a non-adversarial resolution. 3. SACPA does not find drug testing services of any kttxi Drug testing is an 'hilmuvat pot of all drug court programs as required by Drug Coutts'Key Component 03. 4. SACPA expressly prohibits the imposition of incarceration as a condition of probation. This would appear to include the use of brief periods of incarceration(usually between 1.14 days)as a graduated sancrtion for failure to comply with a aew ent. 5. SACPA excludes custodial drug treatment pmgrams ftom being a SACPA authorized "drug tmtznow "or"drug tneatmenr. 6. SACPA appears to not favor residential drug treaunent programs as"drugtreatment"by inClu&n" 'y, ..residential drug "(emp hwis added)in its definition of"drug w4 7. The application of SACPA is subject to the ohsrging discretion of the prosecutor's office whenever a related misde;aa+eanor can be charged. 8. SACPA limits Uvatmetnt to a maximum of 12 months(with the option of an additional 6 Monais Of aftercare an-vices). SEF'-13- 14:43 CCC HOARD OF VERUISCIRS 15103743429 P.09 ' SACPA analysis.page S DW PC IWO,including DW PC 1000 drug court programs. Why Would it SACPA eligible dvfmdwu elect D7F,J M ION and subject h mWf7htrsalf to a Minimum of 18 ariMtha to a nu t4mum of 3 yew of probation supervision when.by doing so,Wale does not cora a SACPA `ticket-prur k which may qualify limiter for a m odmumu 30 day county jail sentence in the future? It wound prtabably be ineffective asaistaa ce of oomsel,except in cam involving immigration issues and a pre-gWity Plea PC 1000.3 drug court program option,to have a partici}at in VE PC 1000. PC 1210.1(c)(3):This subsection limits SACPA drug ttdOwtottt to 12 months with the option of ti additional months of aftercare services. C4samems While most substance abuses trestment providars would agree that 12 mouths of went sbourld be a minimUM requirommik SACPA imposes a 12 moth requirement. In addition,especially with a criminal justice popuilaation,rt often tabes more d= 12 months to sucoessfhIly complete s program. This is especially true when oxxt aafiul oompletion ofthe treatment program requires a miinimmn of 120 to 1813 days of clean drug- te ebmg results at the time of completion. PC 1210.1(e): This subsection describes the viol ation/mvocatiion of probation procedures for SACPA probtMon. PC 1210.1(exl):This subsection provides d at.tfa defendant is on SACPA probation and probation is revoked the def mdant nay tbanaafter be sentenced wig regard to ulna SACPA "no iwmceration"provision. Thus,a"strike"detendant that is terminated unsuccessUly from SACPA drug treatment,may be:sentetumd to state prison according to"strike sentencing r�ttir+ernants. PC 1201,l(eX3): This subsection sets forth the probation violationlrevocabon procedure for defendants on SACPA probation that violate probation due to drug related issues. (Seen also SACPA. Section S.PC 1210.1(cX2).) Under PC 1210.1(eex3),a defendant may be entitled to 3 full,contested probation revocation hearings before being terminated firom treatment and sentenced. Commesata A statutory right to 3 thil,Contested probation revocation hearings C*Wd create an undue burden on the:+Miro judicial ,to include:the omnis;the resemuns;the defemae amen eys. the probation d epa rtrn aft. While it may Ike possible to have a defmxettt admit a violreaion of pr+obeflon without conduoting a<pmbatim advocation ging,the las gunge of ft atemte is"the court ftU conduct a hearing"(emp0hasts added). Also,if the court ac©epb an admission of violation without a hearing,it is unkwwn if the defet&m would then still be entitled to 3 prob aeon revocation hearings. The MdyjrMrW nature of these contested probation MOCation proceedings would be watt airy to Drn Courts' Key Compomot 02. in addition, if SEP-13-2000 14:42 CCC ESRD OF SUPERVISORS 15103743429 P.08 SACPA analysis -page 4 PC 1210.1(b)(4); This soon excludes defendants who nda=drug int as a condition of probation. Commear. It is respecdkilly suggested that no dezficadant will refuse drug tr=tnnent under SACPA prvbabon.x*0 the deferaadant is offerrid some disposition that is viewed by the defendant(or the defendant's attorney)as being man favorable than SACPA probation; i.e., very hmitad jail time with very limited probation. This sugpstion is based on SACPA's sentmcing w1eeme for def ndants that have puWpeterd in two separme couran of chug punwant to SACPA(m mmuia 30 day corrasty jail sentence). (,Seer SACPA, Section 3, PC 1210.1(bX3j,disc4and below.) PC 1210.1(2)(5). This subseWon t whxks defeendants that have participated in two separate of drug treaftent pumiant to SACPA and have been fnnand snnamemable:to"any and all forms of available drug traftemt". Such deftutauft are,in M opinion, by being subjox t+eyd to a maximinn wntmft of 30 days in jail. Commmt: 1 think that this is the MW tri aspect of SACPA. I suppose tate drafters*f SACPA included this 30 day mwcbntnn seot+enc:e on the thtmy that non-violent drug possession offenders that are unarrimable to treatrimi sho tdd no be subjected to punishment. I can certainly envision scenarios where defendants are not adverse to getting their SACPA"ticket"' punched 2 times,in order to quality for the"third time is a charm"sentmoe of 30 days county jail. I am also of the opinions that SACPA defer davits,who have Wiled their 2 prior separate courses of treatment pursuant to SACPA, will have;an MWM time of beim(bund wu metseble to treannesn.and therefore being subjected to a mancimum saermice of 30 days:cuxnsty jail. 7Isis subsection is nxw subject to abuse wbmv the defimdent"s prior oourse of treatment was for a misdcnu anon offewc,especially H&S 11550(Being Under the b*ueme of a Controlled Substance). Under curre=nt law.H&S 11350 carries a 90 day minimum co mty jail sentence for the first offense and impasses a 180 day minimum cosasty jail sent==for a third conviction within 7 years. (.Sae H&S 11330(b).) Howsm,if the H&S 11530 defendant has participated in 2 prior separate omuses of traattmant pours=w to SACPA,the&qr tsdarrt is sentenoed mwuant to PC 1210.l ftS),M H&S 11530(b). Of course, a SACPA eligible"strike"dtfenubust who,gess hill w SACPA"ticlaet" punched for 2 separate H&S 11350 convicdwdm also MM a 30 day maximum otyumty jail Watence for&U future non-violent drug ponenion offaxes. To be fair.PC 1210.1(b)(5)den not apply to defendants who have the misfortune of busing subjected to pcosocution for no**ug retried misdezziennors together with their non- violent&W possession offense. (Sae PC 1210.1(b)(2),sr .) Thus,although their SACPA "ticket"leas 2 prior pundh les.it will not get them to the 30 day county jail see. Note: It is due to the provisions of PC 1210.1(bX5)that I believe UFJ PC 1000 eligible who are charged with SACPA eligible gftM will opt for SACPA probation over •_• ■ • � !1 1 I. ., . � 1 1 f :, • .R 1 • s 'J r l x l ! � t f, � . i A _.•,•, e 1 • • If } ,.. f It ., •- TO-3,ti • •1.+1 ] .11 •. 1• • ! , }.s / • Ax-♦ • f/ 5 •.I ► f.+•' It 1 M 1 s +x1 {1 • i ..it + • i .,t,; X1. f1.. ., # ti..•t ..i:'1...'.a a f • ! *;.• t I -• f! ��'f4 T" !.!. I l.• ! `! Ytf !•/ ' f1 t. {.,'r • a-f.. 1 RlIT!, •' ► •l - 6 IA7,iR •R1 ITIUsT61t NAM"M • 1.•`"A •f f�! '{. i..11l -:', 4_tt \ ♦ �.:' R A t ! 4 . • 1..•�'l: • (.� ! f - 11 ! 1 h �. f! R / - f _xf.1,.1 • -4• ft - !. fX ...♦ Xl at*its +._.• 11 w s W"-11 T r•-} . to r AIIF }.t • -•1 „R }. . ..—+fX 1.f • t'" ! i � -M• •1 !f 'Xf f 1ft I • �ifn1A.>n •'1 ■ t ! i !� I.4 ♦ ♦} A tl #t. I. t -1•s 4 ,' ►.. ►a 11 , � � • /• A' • i • •{ .M •1 1♦ Ie •'♦ ■ !1 .. 11 • •/ !'. # ..4l 1'.. / •.1 • '.Yl-# 1X • -,ff ! •, t 1 4 7 :.1 -.�f ! • 1s X { •f r- •. i :t •lf �1 -• 4! a. I4 X - ♦1 A .Ir t/ of 1' t *X rt •.R -.' t_•a 1. A - ! f • • t >.. 1f -.r• • ♦ •J If � • *-,•'1 ♦ 1 • 4 1 1 • • ♦# .tt..f If '077777- ■ 1 -If • f XNI `(�• I • • .erf * 1. •` * 4 t • f '1 it - 1I • -1 f -: t.t7 • # # f1 .}1/ �f #�.. J 1 Ti •! R }�: 1 ! It# ! 1•f 1 •. ! 'J •f ■�� t" w• ♦ f1 .#all) f• • 1 sl a t.,: •if i +nt. 1 ! 1 e f - • • R •# . 1 f 1 AI. 4 :# 1! .-' I 1 I1 ♦ -.ii • 1 ■-t � • .11 •. i ft • ��a#11 .♦ •l -.._�--! ♦ t C. 1 ! t 1 1 �^r •i _ F t • +/ T1• •1 1 t a- i' X! .+i • enl f •1 1 11! ..tll ►# i 1 0411 - t • I• f 4{ }r tf f X • > , .,, • ! ■1. ! ! • � it " t • t 1 • t 11. {'# 1 a • i X ': it � t f!� • ..tff ". 1 ''# • 11 Mf {, f • ,! * 1 t,. I t t j, t s ! • _t �,♦, t ft.N ! �• 111 -• I ! 4 ! V1 t y. 1.1;1 +� t •J 11 s t . • Ali ♦t f re uf( ! u# . f ! ♦ `! to -+ fl t • }.•�. .e. ! 1 - s f t.1. fe » 1. >.'i .• -+n..,11 • #•P 1,1,1 ! • `.r- ..itv ' Iril / >^ •� e- I - ! R ! ♦ {' e -"tff} �u� u.t i ♦ 1! 1� - (.: e, f ! . "1}t,a11 � •.t ! 1.: * ♦ '1 at •rU !. t 1" 1'tt f "t f • -Y. •i ! •.1. f !/r•--r1 e} • 1 r t •1 `! • t'. J77;;VMMWK • -•! t •/e.*`i 11 !' !.'1 It t t ♦ #•"_. �•' ! 1+1t:1 i •• ! It . l.,tj !! •1 - !."4: ;-t♦. t l.it •11.41 { t t t _ R • ll•{ •..n .11 •.! - ♦ r • ! ! f ! { t-ttfl •�_'e ILS 1 1 i� 4 .. t' 'J t 1 A i Y•l.1 � i t :l 5. 1 4 vl 1 1 .. t.. tl F{ t •I • `I -Y1! - !f ♦4�. t )-r •! _ l i •'-A b. ;.• t / '•+•11 . ! ! 11 f• ! • ! • t t ! 11771 t•T7 I• #1 +. t! !, f •.1 ,t1 ! It +It.=: t1:. t !.- -'-1 t • t ! 1 •/ i It tLLOj,.f-1o# I'M 75• • ft 1 t !. b. ♦ t f • 11 t •'! Y r. 1 '# = } �.1 ! ! f t // '.t ��. f( • � ! t : •1 ♦• I t R! • I • !.w • I w.I � ! II t1 t• 1 M� # 1 '.l.l• ! 4 • f t. t ! • i 777-77 + ♦. ^.i .vt tvt;t- It 4 1 1 !- � t +1! • A .+•1 • �1 , II# •.A !: fills ` •. 1_.r. i 1 t tl\ 1..1 //l '_I ! i 1..t _ . . .._ ..... __ SEP-13-2000 14:4`7 CCC BOARD OF Si J T SORS 15103743425 P.12 SACPA analysis-page 8 9. By supplanting DW PC I000. SACPA will draw eligible participants away ftom Drug Court Partnership Act(DCPA)funded DEJ PC 1000 drug court programs. 10. Most of what would be amomplished by passage of SAC.,PA.(albeit not the proposed fi mding)could have bona achieved by anerwfing DEJ PC 1000,to expand the eligible population of participants. Such an anwxb=t to DEJ PC 1000,expanding eligibility criteria, would have avoided the*ec4+t m noted above. #ti###t#tw***!M iii•iiiititittt##t+lr+i MiMit�siMii#+iii#i#t#iitw+it+RSR*Licit'it+llrMtY##iiitlr#�R+F+�+1 +it#lM�'►##ttt+itii+Minlr+fr#fir#,Ic+iri+�t#+ft+f 1'*i tttlinti#ttt#i+itF+iritiiti#Inlrtiii+l##i*«#+1*tR Submitted by:Harlan G. Grournan Superior Court Judge Contra Costen county Richnwed,CA 94905 SEP-14— 09:36 CCC BOARD OF SUPERV I SaRS 15103 r 43429 P.02 AN ANALYSIS F THE u SUBSTANCE ABUSE A D CRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2000'" ).;!y 7*t California Narcotic Officers Amciation and 77m California District Attorneys A aociatim INTRODUCTION The: Califomia Narcotic Officers Association and the Cal SEP-14-2000 09:36 CCC BOARD OF Si FERV I SOFAS 15103?43429 P-03 convicted of drug pensession or drug use arc provided appropriate community-based treatsne:nt instead of incarceration." As we shall see later in our analysis, the substantive provisions of the initiative make little difficrentiation between "non-violent" persons and those who arc "violent:,"near is there any dfbrt to set guidelines as to what constirute:d -appropriate community-based treatment."The final finding references the Arizona initiative passed in 1996----was arc assuming the promoters arc rcferring to Proprmitiesn 200 passed by Arizona waters that year. The promoters seek to equate their initiative with the Arizona initiative. In facr there are significant differences berwcen their initiative and Arizones Proposition 700,The reader of dume findings will also note the placing of the quotation marks when the promoters reference the Arizona Supreme Court "Rcpurt Card" an the Arizona law. 'The promoters quote the "report card" as saying the Arizona law's impact is "m*Wting in safer communities and more: substzmcc abusing probationers;in rccove ry." As a continuation of that sentence, the promoters go on outside: the quotation marks with the unsubstantiated assertion that the Arizona initiative "has already saved state mxpayetrs millions of dollars,and is helping more than 76%of pro atn participants to remain drug free." The reader should not cnn&w the promoters unsupported assertions with the actual comments of the Arizona Supreme Court. Section 3 of the initiative contains the "Purpose and Intent" clauses of the initiative. The second stated purpose alleges that this initiative will "halt the wasteful expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars each year on the incarceration ---and re-incarceration --of nein-violent drug users who would be better served by communiry-based treatment.- In fact, given the pro%n clow of current law that provide for drug diversion of many persons convicted ofdrug possession offenses, this stated purpose suggests an intent of the promotes to go well beyond those who are convicted of simple: drug possession. Absent from the: promoters"assertion is any evidence suggesting that "hundreds of millions of dollars" are spent annually to incarcerate drug users. Section 4 of the initiative is the definitional section. This is the first section of the initiative that actually purports to make substantive changes in the law. From this point forward, our analysis wilt reference the actual prognosed code sectiom; .contemplated by the initiative. Proposed Penal Grade Section 1210{x) defines a "nein-violent drug possession offense" as the "unlawful possession., use,or transportation for personal use of any controlled substance identified in Health and Safety Codc sections 11054, 11055, 11456, 1,1457 or 11458 or the oftenst of being under the influence of a controlled subsrarnce in violation of Health and Safrcy Code section 1155+0." r-W 2 SEP-14-2000 09=3"7 CCC EOWD OF S'LPERV I SIRS 15103743429 P.04 The massive scope of this definition is ultimately a matter Of Policy for voters to decide, but there arc some draft?ng issues with this section that arc quite serious. The concept of"trangxu-t"atir n of controlled substances" is codified in Health & qty+Gods sections 11352 and 11379. Neither of these sections has the cunccpt of transpormtion "fear personal use."Without saying so directly,the promoters have severely limited the transportation sections of current law. A defendant charged with transportation of controlled substances under either of these two sections will now litigate the issue of whether the transptarution was "for Personal use." The uninsended consequcnce of this section will be to sdd to the number of trials on this issue. Proposed Penal Codc section 1210(b) defines "drug treatment program" or `drug treatment" to nstan a "licensed and/car certified community drug treatment program which may include one or more of the following: outpatient treatment, half way house treatment, narcotic replacement therapy, drug education or prevention courses and/car limited inpatient or residential drug treatment as needed to address special detoxification or relapse situations of were dependence." Two questions are raised by this definition. Vim, the re&rence "licensed and/or certified' invites the question "by whom}" Is the stats going to license drug trmtrncnt programs, or is that going to be left to local +enntititO Since the language also adds the phrase "axed./or ccrtifacd.," docs that suggest that a program might not be licensed but might be certified? If so, by whom? Would the certification be by a tide association of progra ens, or by a governmental entity,or by both,or by either? Will there be programs that have been denied a license (or had a license revoked), but have been certified by a trade association of some type? Who will oversee licensing and certification of these.progra:mf Since the initiative is silent on all of thesc issues, it is impossible to gauge the level of licensing accountability, if any, that will be contemplated by the initiative. Second, missing from the definitional Language is any grounding in treatment programs that are succcssfUl. Instead, the definitional langraagc is sea open-ended that it invites all manner sof programs that describe.themselves as —treatment p►rognms" to fit under this definition --iistcluding such programs as phone counseling, internet chart rooms or cans me recordings. If the deAnition of what cornstitute$ a"treatment program' is a vague one, the definition of what is not a treatment program is very specific. The language of section 1210(b) specifically excludes any drug treauncat progranns ofkmd in a prison or jail facility. Thus,in-custody programs designed to assist inmates who have:drug problems—and designed to deQvasc the chances of their re-offending—are excluded from the definition of treatment programs and will be denied the funding contcmplated by the initiative. r.�a SEP-14- 09:3? CCC BOARD OF SUPERU I Sri 151133X7743429 P-05 Proposed penal Code section 1210(c)defixses the "suc+cessfiA completion ion of treatment." The section states that it "umans that a defendant who has had drug treatment knposed as a condition of probation has completed the prescribed courser of drug treatment and, as a result,there: is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant will not abuse controlled subsWce+s in the future." `Phis definition appears to exclude from any definition of"ancmufil r=tmcnt" all parolees who arc entitled to treatment under this initiative. The definition refers to defendants who have had "drug tresuu=t iuqxwd as a condition,ofprobation." Parolees have conditions of parole,not probation. Thus the initiative:purporrts to set standards for successful treatment by persons convicted of so-called "non-violent drug possession"offenses, but evidently leaves to the discretion of unnamed person or persons as to whether on not a pualee has successfiilly completed treatment. Proposcd Penal Code section 1210(d) defines a "misdemeanor not related to the use of drugs." The definitional section states that this phrase means a "misdemeanor that docs not involve (1) the simple possession or use of drugs or drug paraphernalia., being present where drags are used,or fatlurc m register as a drug offender or (2) any activity similar to Chose listed in (d)(1) above." This section is not what it appears to be. 'Under this section, dciensc counsel could argue that a defendant who stole some jeans From a department store,led the police on a vehicle pursuit, all for the purpose of selling the jeans to support his drug habit was not committing a "misdemeanor not related to the use of drugs." Certainly defense counsel's cast would be stronger if it could be shown than the defendant was in actual possession sof controlled substances at the time of the crime.This section has the mischievous potential to permit dcfc= counsel to argue that virtually any misdemeanor was a misdemeanor that,was related to the: use of drugs. Section 5 of the initiative+,after concluding the definitional section,adds a proposed Penal Cade section 1210.1 that provides in subdivision (a) that "except ars providcd by subdivision (b), any person cmvicted(emphasis added) of a non-violent drug possession offense shall receive probation." T'he reader should note the departure from current law. Lander cwmnt law, a defendant must generally plead guilty to be eligible to enter a diversion program.However, defendants who are convicted at trial atter not clip bk for diversion. Current law has the requirement of a guilty pica,for the very good reason that it makes thtrapcutic sense. ProfeWonals in the treatment community have infbraned us that in essential element of a person's recovery is for them to admit their conduct. h.defendant who has made that admission via a guilty plea is a for better candidate for rccoveryr than is one who remains in denial. tyr a SEP-14-2000 09:36 CCC BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 15103743429 p.06 The initiative,however, disperses with the therapeutic professional's doctrine that succesaft treatment is dependent on an admission of conduct. Under the initiative, a defendant who has been arrested for trauapvrting crack onto a schoolyard could go to trial, be convicted, and still be eligible for "an appropriate drug treatment program" even though there is no evidence of any admission of conduct deemed by therapeutic pro&ssionals to be so necessary frir recovery! Dcli mse counsel would be remiss if they did not advise their clients to go to trial first and attempt to obtain an acquittal,since their client would still be eligible for "an appropriate drug treatment program" if he/she were to be convicted. The increase in the number of drug cases that would go to vial is simply incalculable. The balance of subdivision (a) of Penal Code section 1210.1 direr&the court to "require participation in and completion of an appropriate drug treatment program." The initiative also says that the court "may"impose conditiow of probation participa- tion in vocational training, family counseling, literacy training and/or community service." The court is cxpressly prohibited from ordering incarceration as a condition of probation. As the reader will see later in this analysis, vocational training, family counseling and literacy training are all eligible for funds under the funding mechanism contemplated by the initiative. Subdivision (a) also says that the court "may" require a convicted defendant--- who is reasonably able to do so—to "contribute to the cot of their own placement in a drug treatment program." Here again, the framers of the initiative have given short shrift to the views of therapeutic Professionals,who have stated that part of a person's recovery is to require them to take owncr.rship of their recovery program. This is done by requiring them to pay for the cost of the program — much as is currently required of defendants who are gent to UUt programs. Instead, this initiative permits the court to find that the defendant can afford to pay for treatment, but still accuse him/hcr from doing so. Subdivision (b) of proposed Penal Code section 1210.1 purports to enumerate those classes of defendants who are not eligible for the "probation plus treatment" model proposed by the initiative. As the reader will ace,however,there arc serious drafting problems with this section which cffcctively make some very problematic characters eligible to take shelter under the initiative. Subdivision (b)(1) excludes defendants who had been convicted of one or more serious or violent&Ionics.Well,not really. If the "non-violent drug possession of cnsc" occurred more than five years aRtr the defendant was out of prison, ocaured mare than five years after the defendant was convicted of any other felony (ether than a non-violent drug pcownion ofrense that doesn't count anyway) or occurred more than five years after the dcfcadant was convicted of a misdemeanor that involved physical injury or the threat of physical injury to another perm, the Are a SEP-14-2 09:39 CCC HOARD OF SL PERV I SOBS 1510 3?43429 P.07 defendant is still able to take shelter under the initiative. In effect, a defendant who had been released fmm prison on January 21, 1995 after serving time for Itis/her second violent felony, who subsequently was convicted of transporting crack cocaine onto a schoolyard, would be eligible for "probation plus treatment" pursuant to this initiative. 'This amounts to a significant weakening of California's "Three Strikes" law- Subdivision awSubdue (b)(2)purports to exclude any defendant who, "in addition to one or more non-violent drug possession offenses," has been convicted of any felony or of a misdemeanor not related to the use of drugs. As the reader will recall, the definition of what constitutes a "'misdemeanor not related to the use of drugs" is something that is subject to evasion.Although poorly worded,this section would seen,to conticmplate a fact situation where the defendant was convicted of the other crimes and the "non-violent drug possession offense" in the same transaction., since under subdivision (b)(1),defendants who w non-violent felony convictions or whose life-threarening misdemeanors are more than five years old art eligible for the protection under the initiative. Subdivision (b)(3) is among the more confusing in the entire initiative. Subsection (b)(3)(A) purports to exclude fivm the initiative anyone who "while cuing a firearm, unlawfully possesses any amount of(1) a substance containing either cocaine base, cocainc,hcroin, maharnphetaminc, or (2) a liquid, non-liquid, plant substance, or hand-rolled cigawtte, containing phencyclidine. Subsection (b)(3)(B)purports to exclude those who "while using'a firearm (are j unlawfully under the influence of cocaine base, cocaine,heroin, mediamphcmm nc or phencyclidine." Again, this "exclui icon"is not as all encompassing as would first appear. A defendant who is "using" a firearm while in powAision or under the influence of designer drugs or anabolic steroids cannot be incarccrated; instead,they may obtain the "probation plus treatment" contemplated by the initiative. Subdfv*alon (b)(5) excludes defendants who have two convictions for cion-violent drag posscasion officnscs,and have participated in two separate courses of drug treatment pursuant to subdivision (a) and are found by the court by "dear and Convincing" evidence,to be unamenable to any "all furans of aivadla4ble drug treatment." Normthst:anding any other provision of law, the maximum seanti mM for such a dc&ndant shall be 30 days in jail. The likelihc',od is that very few will be excluded under this section. Subdivision (t)of proposed Penal Code section 1210.1 provides for the timetable for the drug treatment programs. Within 7 days of the imposition of probation, the probation deparunent is required to notify the drug treatment provider designated to provide the drug treatment. The treatment provider then has 34 days to prepare a treatment plat and forward it to the probation department. The treatment provider is required to provide quarterly prow-as reports can the defendant to the probation department. It should be noted that these mandated deadlines would place a ble burden on already overburdened probation departments. It is also noteworthy that, r*Mt 6 SEP-14-2000 09:39 CCC BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 15103'743429 P.08 although mandated deadlines are placed on probation and the treatment providers, the initiative is silent as to wb=the convicted defendant is required to report to ha/1w treat- ment program. The initiative says that providers may not* the probation department if they determine that the defendant is not arncnablc to treatment in their program, but may be amenable to treatment in another program. The probation department is d= given authority to move the court to modify the probation terms to send the defendant to that other program. One wanders who would cause a treatment provider to suggest that a defendant be transferred from their program to another---and thcrefore lose the state stipend for that person. One possibility, of course, is that one provider is in a collusive arrangement with a second provider,wherein the second provider gives a "rebate" to the first provider for the referral. Oven the level of scandal that has occurred in the group home industry, this assumption is not an unreasonable one. This subsection also declares that the provider may inform probation gest the defendant is unamcnab►e to their drug treatment program, and all other forms of drug treatment. It that case, the department may move to nw+okc probation -•-•one wonders why they would not move to revoke under thow dreurrtstancec, but the initiative does give them the right to continue a dcfcndant on probation who,in the opinion of professionals, is unamenable m any type of treatment. The court may revoke probation, unless the defendant prrwes by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a drug treatment program to which he is amenable. 3n other word.+e, all a defendant need do is show that somewhere there is a treatment program that might be a "fit" for him— even though there is no requirement that he then be placed in such a program! Section 1210.1 (c)(3) states that the drug treatment services pursuant to this initiative may not exceed twelve months with an additional six-month period of"aftercare" servicers that may also be required. We arc unaware of any research that suggests that this tape of twelve-month period is the optimum amount of time for a treat meat program to be effective. Section 12101.1 (d) has the potential fbr mating were public safety problems. Section 1210.1 (d)(1) deals with the manner in which charges against a defendant arc dismissed, The defendant petitions the court for dismissal of tate charges. The court is mandated to set aside the conviction on which the probation was based and dismiss the indictment or information against the defendant. Additionally, the arrest on which the conviction was based is deemed never to have occurred. These actions by the wort are predicated on a judicial findins that the dcfrndant has "successfully completed drug treatment" and ":ubstan lolly complied with the conditions of probation." The reader will rill that,under site definition of"successful trettment of drug treatment," the defendant may continue to use drugs, just not abuse them. The rw 7 SEP-14-2000 09:40 CCG BOARD OF SUPERV I St RS 15103'743429 P.09 concept of"substantial compliance" with probation conditions, of course, implies that the defendant's probation record has speafi c instances of noncompliance. Under Section 12101.1 (d)(1), however, such noncompliance will not be a bar to setting aside the is conviction,dismissal of the indictment or information and a finding that the underlying arrest never occurred. Section 1210.1 (d)(1) then pnwides that,subject to certain specific provisions enumerated in Sections 1210.1 (d)(2) and (d)(3),the defendant"shall thereafter be released Erom all penalties and d4abilitics resulting from the uff=sc of which he or she has been convicted." Section 1210.1 (d)(3) deals with employment, licensing,and other benefits. The first paragraph section provides that after the indictment or information is dismissed,the defendant may indicate in response to any question concerning his or her prior criminal record that he or she was not arrested or convicted for the predicate drug offense. The paragraph groes can to say that a record pertaining to an arrest or conviction where there has leen "successful completion" of a drug treatment program shall not be used in any way that "could result in the denial of any employment, benefit, license, or certificate." This paragraph also provides that its guarantees acre to be modified by paragraph two of Section 1210.1 (d)(3). Turning to paragraph two, we find that the arrest and conviction on which the defendant's probation was based may be recorded by the Department of justice and disclosed in response to any peace officer application request or to a request by any law enforcement agency. This paragraph also provides that dismissal of the infbrmation or indictment under this suction does not relieve the defendant of his,/ her obligation to answer truthfully in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for"public office, for a position as a peace officer pursuant to Penal Code Section 830,licxatuurc by any state or local agency, for contracting with the California State Lottery,or for purposes of jury service." Reading Section 1210.1 (d) in its entirety,it is apparent that the provisions of this section are profound and deeply disturbing. For example, a witness in a trial may answer in the negative when questioned by counwJ as to whether or not he/she has been arrested or convicted of a felony—effectively creating the notion of legally permaittcd perjury. Similarly, applicants for positions such as school bus drivers or airline pilots,surgeons applying fbr admission privileges at a hospital,persons applying to work in a pharmacy arc among t:bc away job applicants who may simply deny that they have any drug arrests or convictions. Although Section 1210.1 (d)does require that applicants for "public office" and peace officer positions answer truthfully if ssked if they have any felony drug arrests-or SEP-14-2000 09:41 CCC BOARD OF SRV I SCRS 15103743423 P.10 convictions,disclosure is the only disability placed on those applicants. Indeed, the language of the law releasing the defendant from "all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offenac" and the Language that says the record relating to the arrest or conviction may not "be used in any way that could result in the denial of any employment,benefit, licensee,or certificate" is not limited by the disclosure requirement of this section! In cffwt, cmptvyers art prohibited from using Cheat types of felony arrests or convictions to prevent someone from driving a school bus, flying a plane, driving a truck, being a surgeon, becoming a peace officer, or holding any other type of state or local lic erase. In addition to the questionable wisdom of permitting convicted drug users to drive school buses, these provisions act to undercut virtually every employer's ability to insure a safe workplace. One can only speculate as to the extent workers compensation premiums may rise as a result of Section 1210.1 (d)of the initiative. Section 1210.1 (c) deals with the issues of violation of probation. Subs on (c)(1) provides that if probation is revoked pursuant to osis subdivision,the defendant may be incarcerated pursuant to otherwise applicable law without regard to the provisions of this section. Subsection (e)(2) indicates that the defendant is subject to having his/her probation rcvokcd if they arc arrested for an ofd' uc that is not a "non-violent drug possession offense' or if they violate a "non-drug related condition of probation." Although the initiative defines "non-violent drug possession offense",it does not define "non-drug related condition of probation." Definition of this language will have to await the outcome of litigation. Subsection (e)(3) outlines those circumstances where a defendant would be subject to having probation revoked after being arrested for a "non-violent drug possession offense" or by violating a so-called "drug-related condition of probation." For the first such offense or violation, the probation may only be revoked if the state ---- presumably the prosecutor, although the law would then be silent can the burden placed on the probation department should they initiate revocation proceedings --proves by a preponderance of the o4denet that the defendant poses a danger to the safety to Gathers. This will make revocation hearings into full fledged trials as bath parties bring in witnesses to testify as to the defendant's safety —or lack thereof--to others. Defendants who violate probation a second time.by tither being arrested for a "non-violent drug possession offbnac"or by violating a "drug-related condition of probation," will have their probation revoked if the state provers by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant poses a danger to the safety of others or k unamenable to drug treatment. In considering whether the defendant is unamenable to treatment, the court may consider whether the defendant has committed a "serious" PWq SEP-14-2000 09.43 CCC HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 15103743429 P.11 violation of rules at the drug treatment program, "repeatedly" violated program rules so as to "inhibit" his ability to "ftumcdon in the program," or has "continually refused to participate in the program." Defendants who violate probation a third time may have their probation revoked if the court finds that they have in fact engaged in the violative conduct. Section 6 of the initiative purports to add a new section 3063.1 to the Penal Code. Thia m=on provides that,subject to certain enumerated cxccprtkms,parole may not be suspended or revoked where a defendanr commits a "nem-violent drag perssaision offense" or violates any "drug-related condition of parole." Instead, the "Parole Authority"is directed to require the pancJec to participate in an appropriate drug treatment program.Vocational training, family counseling and literacy training may also bac imposed as additional pamle conditions. Those; parolees who can afFord to pay for their treatment "may" be required to do so. These provisions do not apply to parolees who have been convicmd of one or more serious or violent ficlonies, any parolee who commits one or more non-violent drug possession offenses and is found to have concurrently committed a misdemeanor not related to the use of drugs, or any Many, nor docs it apply to any parolee who refuses drug treatment. Given this language, one could infer that persons who are on parole for felonies that are outside the scope of Penal Cade Section 667.5 or 1192.7 that dor not involve the "concurrent commitment" of a non-violent drug possession offense will be able ro avoid having their parole revoked. This represents a significant diminution of the ability to hold parolees accountable. The reader will note that a parolee who violates a "drug-related condition of parole" must be placed in trcatmeant, and cannot have his/her parole revoked. Since the law does not define "drug-related condition of parole," this provision has the potential to bac judicially expanded in ways that are not yet calculable. The provisions with respect to those circumstances in which a parolee may have his/her parole violated are laid out in Penal Code Section 3063.1 (d). Parolees who are arrested for an offense other than a non-violent drug possession offense, or who violate a "non-drug related condition of,pamle,- are subject to revocation. The issue of what constitutes a "non-drug related condition of parole"will be the subject of intense and spirited litigation. Parolees who are arrested for s non-violent drug possession offense, or when violate a "drug-related condition of parole" may have their parole revoked if it is proven that they pose a danger to the safety of others. Parolees who violate their parole a second time either by being arrested for a non-viadeist drug possession offense or by violating a drug-related condition of parole may have their parole revoked if the parole violation is proven. �ori SES'-14- 09:44 CCC BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 15103143429 P.12 Section 7 of the initiative adds a new Division 10.5 to the Health & Safety Code. 'Phis new division purports to create the so-called "Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund." Proposed Health & Safkty Code Section 11999.5 provides that $60,000,000 shall be appropriated from the General Fund to the Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund for the 2000-2001 Fiscal Year immediately upon passage of the initiative. Slave the Governor and the Legislature are currcntfy working on the 2000-2001 Budget, and since that budget mast be adopted by July 1, 2800, they would be.well served to build in additional budget reserve of$68,000,000 for this purpose in order to avoid having to cut other stare programs should this initiative; pass on November 7, 2000. This same section provides that$120,000,000 is to be continuously appropriated from the General Fund for fisml years 2001-20+02 through 2005-2006 inclusive. Section 11999.6 provides for the distribution of the monies in the Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund. Under this section, the Secretary of the Health and'Wcifarc Agents through the Stats Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs,is directed to distribute: funds to counties to "cover the casts of placing perwm in and providing (1) drug treatment programs under this Art and (2) vocational training, family counseling and literacy training under this Act." This language reveals that the funds in this "Trust Fund" arc not encumbered solely for drug treatment, but rostrad may be diverted to job training, fkmily counwAng or literacy training. As if this erosion were not enough, however, this section gots on to say that "additional cosh that may be reimbursed from the Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund include probation department costs,court moniwzing cam,and any miscellaneous costs made necessary by the provisions of this Act." Since they language here speaks of"reimbursement" one wonder* if counties obtain these funds by submitting rcque sts for reimbursement,whereas the funis for treatment,vocarional, family and literacy counseling/training might be provided to counties via a direct grant. The language is unclear on this point. Interestingly, although this section seem to contemplate a broad authority to expend "Trust bund" monies,it spermally prohibits use of these funds for "drug testing scrviccs of any kind." This effectively deprives any drug treatment program of the resources necessary to monitor the compliance of those who arc in their program. To the atrtent treatment programs are forbidden to hold their clients accountable for the success of their recovery, they are significantly undermined. The distribution formula contemplated by Section 111999.6 is unclear. The Art refers to the funds being "allocated to counties through a fair and requitable distribution formula that includes,bdt is not limited to,per capita arrests for controlled substance SEP-14-2000 09:45 GLC BOARD OF SUPE.RV I SOBS 15103+43429 P.13 possession violations and substance abuse treatment caseload, as determined by the department as necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act." In other words, the ultimata manner in which these funds are to be distributed to counties will be resolved in some type of implementing legislation. This section also gives authority to the State D"rtn nt of Alcohol and Drug Programs to reserve a pardon of the fund to pay for direct contracts with drug treatment service providers in counties or regions arhere the dcpa buent has made a detcrmination that existing programs cannot adequately meet the demand. No entity is permitted to supplant funds from any existing funds used for substance abuse treatment. Section 11999.7 requires that community drug treaunent programs agree to make their facilities subject to valid kxW government zoning ordinances and development agreements. It is unclear whether or Thor this would permit local government to have any control over the siting of these community-based programs. Under current law, for example, local govcrnanent has no control over the siting of it residential group home that has six or fewer live-in residents. Presumably, drug treatment programs would be permitted to operate in single-family residential areas under the same terms. Section 11999.9 provides for an "annual evaluation process." The Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs is directed to conduct an annual study to "evaluate the effectiveness and financial impact of the programs that are funded pursuant to the requirements of this Act." `Phis section directs the study to include but not be limited to—a study of the implementation process, review of"lower incarceration costs," reductions in crime, reduced prison and jail construction, reduced welfare cents, the adequacy of fund.+appropriated,and any other impacts or issues the department can identify." Missing from these directives is any direction to evaluate the inrrrcascd burdens an the judicial.system. More important, these directives do not include any provisions ibr auditing the various programs that would be using*tate funds to operate. This emission is a quite serious rine.The tack of meaningful ningful audita— particularly when one considers the very louse definition of"treatment program" —is a prescription for fraudulent behavior. Section 11999.10 creates an "outside evaluation process." The Department is authorized to set aside $600,000 annually for a "long-terns study" to be conducted by a public university in Cdifbrnia aimed at "evaluating the cffectiveness and financial impact of the programs which arc funded pursuant t+n the requirements of the Act." The reader should keep in mind that this is not an audit of the various programs. It appear to be duplicative of Section 11999.9's contemplated evaluations. Section 11999.11 directs counties to report to the state detailing the numbers and characteristics of client-participants served as a result of funding provided under the initiative. Again, there are no provisions for auditing the individual programs. r�tie S'EP-14-2000 09:46 CCC BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 15103743429 P.14 Section 11999.12 finally references audits. It gives the department the authority to annua lty audit the expenditures made by any county with funds provided by the Act. 'There is nes provision to audit the individual prpgrwm, Swdon S provides that the provisions of the Act will became effective on July 1, 2001,unless otherwise provided within the body of the initiative. Section 9 of the initiative provides that it may only be amended by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature. The amendments may only be in furtherance of tht .Act and consistent with its purposes. Prcturnably, legislation to acct in placean audit procedure for the individual treatment pmideta would require a two-thirds vote. It might also be argued that all leglalation governing narcotic laws,parole procedures as well as legislation purporting to define:with more precision what constitutes a "non- drug related offense" would all be subject to the same two-thirds vote requirement. Section 10 is the severability clause of the act. I—is,26W r�Y: L•kt SUBSTANCE ABUSE William.B. Walker, M.D. ADVISORY BOARD Health Services Director 597 Center Avenue, Suite 320 Chuck Deutschman .w,//' ,, """"~�— Martinez, CA 94553 CSAS Director C O TRA O S T A (925) 313-6311 HEALTH SERVICES----��--- Fax(925) 313-6390 TO: Contra Cosh County Board of Supervisors FROM: Tom Aswad, Chair Substance Abuse Advisory Board—SAAB- District 1 Beverly Dickens DATE: September 28,2000 Joanna Gomes Edward Rimer SUBJECT: California State Proposition 36 District z Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 Vacant Ellen Peterson Vacant RECOMMENDATION District 3 After directly engaging ourselves in a broad educational process and Tom Aswad considering all points of views,the Substance Abuse Advisory Board at Vacant Jodi Riley the regular monthly meeting held on September 27, 2000 unanimously voted and recommended to ADOPT a position in FAVOR of Proposition District 4 36 on the November ballot. Proposition 36 mandates drug treatment Robbie Bush instead of incarceration for non-violent defendants,probationers, and Harold E. Parsley parolees charged with drug possession or drug use offenses. Denise May District s WIIEREAS, SAAB is keenly aware that Proposition 36 is a legislative Suzi d Prindle piece far from perfect, and acknowledges the exemplary effort of the Drug Cindy Powell Court programs,the grounds for our recommendation are: Rocio Gomez The terms of the initiative are a significant step forward to drug policy At barge Members reform and a major attempt to shift societal norms to view alcohol and Leslie 0.Anderson Peter Muller drug abuse as a disease. Patty Simons Vacant The relapse rate for diabetes is similar to the substance abuse relapse M.A. Khan rate; however,a person who suffers from diabetes is never deprived from the insulin needed(Dr. David Aimes: "Marijuana In the 90's") . Alternate Therefore, it is immoral that society denies treatment to those who BJ Vogt suffer from the disease of substance abuse. The Mission of the Contra Costa County Substance Abuse Advisory Board is to assess family and community needs regarding treatment and prevention of alcohol and drug abuse problems and report our findings and recommendations to the Health Services Department,the,board of Supervisors and the communities that we serve. Memorandum from Tom Aswad Re.Proposition 36 Page 2 ■ It will divert nonviolent drug offenders out of the criminal justice system and into drug treatment. Research shows that supervised drug treatment works. It improves the health of drug addicts,reduces criminal activity and it saves public tax dollars. Treatment is cost effective and a human right. ■ It breaks the cycle of criminality. By allowing drug addicts to receive treatment we are not only preserving jail space for violent offenders,but also contributing to treat the family as a unit. Families in which addiction is prevalent experience a double impact when family members are incarcerated • The Initiative makes provisions to provide $120 million annually to help strengthen community based treatment programs, and families and communities by providing services which include vocational training, family counseling, and literacy training. C.C. Dr. William Walker,Director Health Services Department Chuck Deutschman, CSAS Director CSAS Management Team CSAS System of Care Providers County Alcohol and Drug Program CADI?AAC Administrators Association of California Dedicated to the reduction of individual and community problems related to(lie use of alcohol and other drugs. MEMORANDUM TO: All A.dMintstr;Itors FROM: Tom Renfree, Wagerman Associates DATE: September 25,.2000 RE: Proposition 36 At last week's Quarterly Meeting CADPAA.0 voted to support Proposition 36. The motion that was passed reads as follows: CADPAAC supports Proposition 36 with the following benefits and concerns stated: Ren-d--Proposition ';6 is supported for the following reasons: 1. Alcohol and drug treatment is effective in reducing criminal behavior. 2. A targe percentage of individuals involved with the criminal justice system are in need of AOD treatment. 3. The current AOD treatment system is charged with the responsibility of treating criminal justice clients without adequate dedicated funding to meet the demand for services. Con".rns—Proposition 36 would be enhanced by the following provisions 1. The option of immediate axed progressive sanctions for continued drug use. 2. Drug testing as a funded service activity. 3. Assurance that the AOD treatment field is an equal partner in the implementation of the proposition and related services. 4. Measure.s to ensure that the majority of resources are used for AOD treatment activities rather than other costs associated with t�.ourt and probation services. Since Proposition 36, if passed,will likely have a significant impact on county AOD programs, a companion motion passed by the A.ssociatiorl directed the Executive Committee to"actively and immediately pursue a contingency planning process in the event that Proposition 36 passes." Proposition 36 is an Initiative Statute, and therefore it is amendable by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. If it passes, CADPAAC's concerns will take the form of legislative proposals. I ani sending as a link the excelleat analysis of Proposition 36 prepared by the League of Women Voters. Also, the Media Awareness Project has a very good web site at www-ma inc.org,which maintains an updated collection of news articles and opinion pieces about Proposition 36, in addition to an extensive online library of drug policy articles. I think you will find this material to be helpful. If you have any questions about C'ADPAAC's position on Proposition 36, or need further information, please feel free to contact me. yn� , On T TVIJ T C T 0 T W(TV ICSC n�fia tTr c7� `VJ 0(—fT 1NT 0011?7/60 Yrs 071 Prop.36 http:J/v�v+vv.drugrcfomi.org/��3o*scrs,t�l Y � The average cost to the taxpayors les 'f�"'+' s' of California per to-mate,per year is +■ljy+ $23,806. ® � �+" —SLvroiiASk ar mlywi.4mct 51496 ts,@WiW dh+0Ui11 .i.. Sto460%70G7, Prop 3 The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act A Smarter flrua YoiiW for Cailfanria•Dwr a Billion Dapars in Savings for TSxoaytrs Official Endorsers of Proposition 36 — The ;Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (as of 0912812000) Mgdical and Public Wealth Organizations Californ Association for Alcohol/Drug Educators CAADE California Association pf Alcoholism. and Druc>f Abuse Counselors California Hispanic Health Care Association California Nurses Association aliforniaPys chiatric Associatif-n _Q&tg a Society of Addiction Medicine California Womerys Commission on Addictions, Mental tar;:filth Association in CaI'fornia National Association of Social Workers - California Chapter 0-ccupAt-icmal Therapy Association of California Francisco AIDS Paundation San FranciscoMedical Society Southern California Public Health Association Drug Treatment Providers Aegis eclical stems,inc. - Statewide Organization Akila Concepts, Inc. - Carson Another Choice, Another Chance - Sacramento Atlantic Recovery Services - Long Beach BAART/CDP - Richmond Bi-Malley Medical Clinic - Sacramento Cedar House Rehabilitation Center- Bloomington 1 d4 91-18100 2:33 PM nen r� eff77 'V7CT\`7ri'RLr CF"Ch f1Rr`Q C7fi C?'Cr i'�.I Qfi:F7 IRT, (10/!s'7/60 ` CS On Prop.36 hitp://www.diuCreromi.orgiendursCTS,Tpl Community Counseling Canter- San Juan Capistrano Crutehers Serenity House - Napa Eastside Health Services - San Gabriel Fair Oaks Recovery Center - Fair Oaks First Steps Perinatal Day Treatment Program - Yuba City Fort Help,- San Francisco Freya At Last- East Palo Alto Free N 0 cie - Los Angeles Genesis ,House, Inc. -Vallejo Hill Alcohol and Drug Treatment - Temecula House of Acts -Vallejo House of Hope Foundation - San Pedro Latino Commission - South San Francisco Meridian Ranch Group Home - Bakersfield Miracle House, Inc. -Ventura Pacific Educational Services, Inc. -Auburn Philibrick's Place -Yuba City Practical Recovery Services - La Jolla Rebuild - Oceanside Seacliff Recovery Center- Huntington Beach St. John of God Health Care Services - Victorville Straight Talk Clinic, Inc. - Santa Ana Transition Place„-Commuri ty,- Clearlake Twin Town Treatment Center- Los Angeles Val-Igy Health Associates - Monterey County Victory Outreach Treatment and Recovery Center- La Puente Victory Outreach Treatment and Recovery Center - La Puente Xanthos, Inc. -Alameda State enators Richard Polanco - District 24, Los Angeles County; Chair, Latino Caucus Hilda Soils - District 24, Los Angeles County Tom Hayclen - District 23, Los Angeles County John Burton - District 3, Marin and Sonoma Counties, San Francisco Don Peratei - District 9, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties John Vasooncellos - District 13, San Jose/Santa Clara County State Ass�tmblY Members Roderick 13. Wright- District 48, Los Angeles County; 2 of 9/28/00 2.33 PM KAA FAI 1'OTT"TCTUTWTV I fiVg7 0609 CYC 976 XVA LC:V1 IHI 001$060 Yes On prop,36 btip://www,di-ugrerorm.orVendorscrs.rpi Chair, Bleck Caucus John Lorigville - District 62, San Bernadino County Martin Gallegos - District 57, Los Angeles County Sheila Jarnes Kuehl - District 41, Los Angeles County Kerry Mazzoni - District 6, Marin and Sonoma Counties Tony Cardenas - District 39, Los Angeles County Marco Firebaugh - District 50, Los Angeles County Virginia `►trom-Martin - District 1, Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Sonoma Counties ocal Government Offigjals Mike Hennessey - Sheriff, San Francisco Michael Nevin - Supervisor, San Mateo County Willie L. Brown, Jr. - Mayor, San Francisco Dave Jones - City Council Member, Sacramento LggW Gouern ent Berkeley City Council Oakland ("Pity Council San Francisco City/County Board of Supervisors Solano County Alcohol and Drug Advisory Board Slatgwid Ogranizations American Civil Liberties Union of California American F�eration of State Cog= and Municipal Ems yees (AME)-- California California Attorneys for Criminal Justice Calii'Djnia Council of Churches/Califon is Church IMPACT California Labor_Federation. AFI--CIO California Women Lawyers Californians for Crime Prevention Cambodian Association of America Con ress,of California Seniors Criminal Justice Consortium Le al Action_Center Libertarian POrty of California Lighthouse Prison Ministry- Harbor House exican �,merican Legal Defense and Educational Fund National Association of Social Workers - California Chapter Na 'r nal Black Police Association Progressive Jewish Alliance 3 uN 9/23100 2:33 PM 0nTTVJTCTk'TT0TV / CVtZI vara eTC' o7A VV-Z tC:FT ITT O0/R7./60 Yes On Prop.36 http-//www.drugrcfbrm.org/cndaisers.tpI Rainbow Caucus of the California Detmocratic Part- ,Rwblican Lbe_r-ty Caucus Republican Liberty Caucus United American Indian Involvement, Inc. Women't► Council L ea�aanizations Alameda County Democratic Lawyers Club All SaintS Church - Pasadena Cambodian Association of America - Long Beach Citizens to Elect Our Public Defender- Santa Clara County Fresno Iridian Health Association - Fresno Gray Panthers - Northern California Gray Panthers - Sacramento Gray Panthers - Long Beach Guidances Church of Religious Science - Los Angeles Harm Reduction Services - Sacramento Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club - San Francisco Hoopa Vrlfley Tribe: Division of Human Services - Hoopa Jewish Defense League- Sacramento John George Democratic Club Oakland Legal Services for Prisoners With Children - San Francisco Mental Hoalth Association of Santa Barbara New Frontier Democratic Club - Los Angeles Parents For Addiction Treatment and Healing (PATH) - San (Mega Ronald H. Brown Democratic Club - Los Angeles Southern California Criminal Justice Consortium - Pasadena Prominent Californians Dolores H uerta - Co-Founder and Secretary-Treasurer, United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO Hon. Mickey R. Conroy - Retired State Assemblyman and U.S. Marine Carps, Santa Ana Horne F-AIT Summary Fac s Press Releases Get 12y lved Contact Us 4 of 4 9/28/00 2:33 PNI M, �10TTVVTCTOTTMV 0A(IQ t"Tfi C70; VV l.i FT IRT 00/97/60 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: Tom Aswad, Chair Substance Abuse Advisory Board—SAAB- osta County xX �i.r GATE: jrlr�yd c� � y September 28, 2000 SUBJECT: California State Proposition 36: Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION After directly engaging ourselves in a broad educational process and considering all points of views,the `Substance Abuse Advisory Board at the regular monthly meeting held on September 27,2000 unanimously voted and recommended to ADOPT a position in FAVOR of Proposition 36 on the November ballot. Proposition 36 mandates drug treatment instead of incarceration for non-violent defendants,probationers, and parolees charged with drug possession or drug use offenses. WHEREAS,SAAB is keenly aware that Proposition 36 is a legislative piece far from perfect;and acknowledges the exemplary effort of the Drug Court programs,the grounds for our recommendation are: • The terms of the initiative are a significant step forward to drug policy reform and a major attempt to shift societal norms to view alcohol and drug abuse as a disease. • The relapse rate for diabetes is similar to the substance abuse relapse rate;however,a person who suffers from diabetes is never deprived from the insulin needed(Dr.David Aimes:"Marijuana In the 90's").Therefore,it is immoral that society denies treatment to those who suffer from the disease of substance abuse. • It will divert non-violent drug offenders out of the criminal justice system and into drug treatment. Research shows that supervised drug treatment works.It improves the health of drug addicts,reduces criminal activity and it saves public tax dollars.Treatment is cost effective and a human right. • It breams the cycle of criminality.By allowing drug addicts to receive treatment we are not only preserving jail space for violent offenders,but also contributing to treat the family as a unit.Families in which addiction is prevalent experience a double impact when family members are incarcerated ■ The Initiative makes provisions to provide$120 million annually to help strengthen community based treatment programs,and families and communities by providing services which include vocational training,family counseling,and literacy training. c.c. Dr.William Walker,Director Health Services Department Chuck Deutschman,CSAS Director CSAS Management'Team CSAS System of Care Providers CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR -RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SiGNATURL : ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER �.�® Proposition 36DrugTreatment Diversion Program Page I of 6 A d"I A W Proposition 36 Drug Treatment Diversion Program. Initiative Statute. ................-............. .................................. ............ ............ Overview This measure changes state law so that certain adult offenders who use or possess illegal drugs would receive drug treatment and supervision in the community, rather than being sent to prison or jail or supervised in the community, generally without drug treatment. The measure also provides state funds to counties to operate the drug treatment programs. The most significant provisions of the measure and their fiscal effects are discussed below. Background Three Types of Crimes. Under current state law, there are three kinds of crimes: felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions. A felony is the most severe type of crime and can result in a sentence in state prison or county jail, a fine, or supervision on county probation in the community. Current law classifies some felonies as "violent" or"serious." The state's "Three Strikes and You're Out" law provides longer prison sentences, in some cases 25 years to life, for offenders who have prior convictions for violent or serious felonies. Misdemeanors are considered less serious and can result in a jail term, probation, a fine, or release to the community without probation but with certain conditions imposed by the court. Infractions, which include violations of certain traffic laws, cannot result in a prison or jail sentence. Drug Offenses. State law generally makes it a crime to possess, use, or be under the influence of certain drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. Some drug-related offenses are classified as felonies and some as misdemeanors. Whether a drug- related crime is classified as a felony or misdemeanor, as well as the punishment imposed upon conviction, depends primarily upon the specific substance found to be in the possession of an offender. Drug offenses are not classified by law as violent or serious offenses. State law generally provides more severe punishment for offenders convicted of possessing illegal drugs for sale rather than for their own personal use. h"-//ufww 1pn Proposition 36—Drug Treatment Diversion Program page 2 of 6 Probation Violators. With some exceptions, an offender convicted of drug use or possession can be sentenced to county probation supervision in the community instead of jail or prison,or to probation supervision after a term in jail. A probationer found to have committed a new crime while on probation such as using or possessing an illegal drug, or who violated any condition of probation, could be sent to state prison or county jail by the courts. Parole Vwlators After release from prison,an offender imprisoned for felony drug possession is subject to up to three years of state parole supervision in the community.A parolee who commits a new crime, such as using or possessing an illegal drug, could be returned to prison by the courts based on new criminal charges,or by the administrative action of the Board of Prison Terms based on a finding of parole violation. Proposal Drug Offenders Convicted in Court Changes in Sentencing Law. Under this proposition, effective July 1, 2001, an offender convicted of a"nonviolent drug possession offense" would generally be sentenced to probation, instead of state prison, county jail, or probation without drug treatment. As a condition of probation, the offender would be required to complete a drug treatment program. The measure defines a nonviolent drug possession offense as a felony or misdemeanor criminal charge for being under the influence of illegal drugs or for possessing, using, or transporting illegal drugs for personal use. The definition excludes cases involving possessing for sale,producing,or manufacturing of illegal drugs. Offenders convicted of nonviolent drug possession offenses would be sentenced by the court for up to one year of drug treatment in the community and up to six additional months of follow-up care. The drug treatment programs must be licensed and certified by the state and could include various types of treatment methods, including residential and outpatient services and replacement of narcotics with medications,such as methadone. A court could require offenders to participate in vocational training, family counseling, literacy training or community service, and could impose other probation conditions. The measure requires that offenders who are reasonably able to do so help pay for their own drug treatment. Some Offenders Excluded. This measure specifies that certain offenders would be excluded from its provisions and thus could be sentenced by a court to a state prison, county jail,or probation without drug treatment. This would be the case for an offender who refused drug treatment,or who possessed or was under the influence of certain(although not all) illegal drugs while using a firearm. This measure also excludes offenders convicted in the same court proceeding of a misdemeanor unrelated to drug use or any felony other than a nonviolent drug possession offense. Also, an offender who had two or more times failed the drug treatment programs required under this measure, and who was found by the court to be"unamenahle" to any form of drug treatment, would be sentenced to 30 days in county jail. In addition, offenders with one or more violent or serious felonies on their record,and thus subject to Ionger prison sentences under the Three Strikes law, would not be sentenced under this measure to probation and drug treatment, unless certain conditions existed. Specifically, during the five years http://www.lao.ca.gov/initiatives/2000/36-11-2000.html 7/26100 Proposition 36 Drug Treatment Diversion Program Page 3 of 6 before he or she committed a nonviolent drug possession offense,the offender(1)had not been in prison, (2)had not been convicted of a felony(other than nonviolent drug possession), and(3)had not been convicted of any misdemeanor involving injury or threat of injury to another person. Court Petitions. An offender placed on probation who successfully completes drug treatment and complies with his or her probation conditions could petition the court to dismiss the charges and to have that arrest considered,with some exceptions, to have never occurred. Sanctions An offender sentenced by a court to participate in and complete a drug treatment program under this measure would only be subject to certain sanctions if it were determined that he or she was unamenable to treatment or had violated a condition of probation. The sanctions could include being moved to an alternative or more intensive form of drug treatment, revocation of probation, and incarceration in prison or jail. In some cases involving repeat drug--related violations, return to prison or jail would be mandatory. Parole Violators Changes in Parole Revocation. Under this proposition, effective July 1, 2001, a parole violator found to have committed a nonviolent drug possession offense or to have violated any drug-related condition of parole would generally be required to complete a drug treatment program in the community, instead of being returned to state prison. The Board of Prison Terms could require parole violators to participate in and complete up to one year of drug treatment and up to six additional months of follow-up care. Parolees could also be required to participate in vocational training, family counseling, or literacy training. Parolees reasonably able to do so could be required to help pay for their own drug treatment. Some Parole Holators Excluded. Under the measure, the Board of Prison Terms could continue to send to prison any parole violator who refused drug treatment, or had been convicted of a violent or serious felony. The measure also excludes parole violators who committed a misdemeanor unrelated to the use of drugs or any felony at the same time as a nonviolent drug possession offense. Court Petitions Unlike drug offenders placed on probation by the courts, parolees would not be eligible under this measure to submit petitions for dismissal of the charges or to have their arrest considered to have never occurred. Sanctions. Parolees who fail to comply with their drug treatment requirements or violate their conditions of parole would only be subject to sanctions similar to those for drug offenders on probation, including modification of their drug treatment program or revocation of parole and return to state prison. Other Provisions The measure provides state funds to counties to implement the measure and requires a study of its effectiveness and fiscal impact. County governments would be directed to report specified information on the implementation and effectiveness of the drug treatment programs.to the state, and their expenditures would be subject to audits by the state. Proposition 36 Drug Treatment Diversion Program Page 4 of Fiscal Effect This measure would have significant fiscal effects upon both state and local governments.The major effects are discussed below. Individual Fiscal Components State Prison System. This measure would result in savings to the state prison system.This is because as many as 24,000 nonviolent drug possession offenders per year would be diverted to drug treatment in the community instead of being sent to state prison.Because many of these offenders would otherwise have served only a few months in prison,we estimate as many as 11,000 fewer prison beds would be needed at any given time. Consequently,state prison operating costs would be reduced by between$200 million to$250 million annually within several years after implementation of this measure. The estimate reflects a range of potential savings because of(1)differences in how counties would implement the measure and the effectiveness of the treatment programs they would establish,(2) possible changes in the way prosecutors and judges handle drug cases, such as changes in plea bargaining practices, and(3) uncertainty about the number of Three Strikes cases affected by the measure. These savings would be partly offset to the extent that the offenders diverted to the community under this measure later commit additional crimes that result in their commitment to state prison. Assuming that growth in the inmate population would have otherwise continued, the state would also be able to delay the construction of additional prison beds as a result of this measure. This would result in a one-time avoidance of capital outlay costs of between$450 million and$550 million in the long term. State Parole System. This measure would divert a significant number of offenders from entering state custody as prison inmates. Thus, fewer offenders would eventually be released from state prison to state parole supervision, resulting in a savings to the state. We estimate thaf the initiative would result in a nef'caseload reduction of as many as 9,500 parolees and a net state savings of up to$25 million annually for parole operations. County Jails We estimate that the provisions in this measure barring jail terms for nonviolent drug possession offenses would divert about 12,000 eligible offenders annually from jail sentences to probation supervision and drug treatment in the community. This would result in about$40 million annual net savings to county governments on a statewide basis, within several years after implementation of the measure. These savings would decline to the extent that jail beds no longer needed for drug possession offenders were used for other criminals who are now being released early because of a lack of jail space. Treatment Trust Fund This measure appropriates $60 million from the state General Fund for the 2000-01 fiscal year, and$120 million each year thereafter concluding with the 2005-06 fiscal year, to a Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund. After 2005-06, funding contributions from the General Fund to the trust fund would be decided annually by the Legislature and Governor. http://www.lao.ca.gov/initiatives/2000/36-11-2000.htrnl 7/26/00 .:::: ..... ... v:r.:. .xx:r.• xx.}•.' ^'F}'+ ..J +r'x+rNl:xr{.; xru..'x.•::.v:::,<..r... ....r.r.....rn...... ...._ ..r.:n __. _ Proposition 36 Drug Treatment Diversion Program Page 5 of 6 The money placed in the trust fund would be allocated each year to county governments to offset their costs of implementing this measure, including increased probation caseloads, substance abuse treatment,court monitoring of probationers,vocational training, family counseling, literacy training, and compliance with the state reporting requirements.None of the money could be used for drug testing of offenders. Fees Paid by Offenders. This measure authorizes the courts and the Board of Prison Terms to require eligible offenders to contribute to the cost of their drug treatment programs. The amount of revenues generated from charging such fees to offenders is unknown but would probably amount to several million dollars annually on a statewide basis within several years after implementation of the measure. Trial`Court Impacts This measure would probably result in significant ongoing annual savings for the court system because fewer offenders facing nonviolent drug possession charges would contest those charges at trial. The combined savings to the state and county governments for trial court, prosecution, and indigent defense counsel costs would probably amount to several million dollars annually on a statewide basis within several years after implementation of the measure. However, the savings to the state could be offset by an unknown, but probably small, amount for additional court costs to monitor treatment compliance by diverted offenders. Other Drug Treatment Effects. To the extent that the additional drug treatment services provided under this measure are effective in reducing substance abuse, state and local governments could experience savings for health care,public assistance, and law enforcement programs. The amount of such potential savings is unknown. Summary of Fiscal Effects This measure is likely to result in net savings to the state after several years of between$100 million and$150 million annually due primarily to lower costs for prison operations. Assuming inmate population growth would have otherwise continued, the state would also be able to delay the construction of additional prison beds for a onetime avoidance of capital odtlay costs of between $450 million and$550 million in the long term. Counties would probably experience net savings of about$40 million annually due primarily to a lower jail population. A summary of the fiscal effects of the measure is shown in Figure 1. Figure i Proposition 36 Summary of Fiscal Effects of Major Provisions' State Local [Substance Abuse Treatment j Trust Fund Appropriation '( $120 million annual costs.l� - (Prison operations $200 million to$250 million annual savings.;! -- $450 million to$550 million one-time costjl Prison construction �� avoidance.11 - Parole operations , $25 million annual savings.L ! Jail operations $40 million annual savings' tatewide.' Proposition 36 Drug Treatment Diversion Program Page 6 of 6 Fees aid by offenders Potentially several million dollars in annual revenues statewide. Trial courts,prosecution, Potentially several million dol ublic defense Potentiall several million dollars in annual sa s. in annual savings statewide. $100 million to$150 million annual net savings, $450 million to$550 million one-timAbout$d0 e cos million in annual ne Tota!Fiscal Y act avoidance" savings statewide. Within several years after implementation of the measur o Return to Initiatives and Propositions Return to Legislative Analyst's Office Home Pale http://www.lao.ca.gov/initiatives/2000/36-11-2000.html 7/26/00 Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly/July 24, 2000, ''Volume 12, No. 29 MoNDAv, Juc tt 24, 7000 PAGE 5 [ PromI . by Treece, Wright, California's Proposition 36: Treatment as a remedy Proposition 36, The Substance Abuse and ber one in the nation in its drug offender • Crime Prevention Act of 2000, is a statewide imprisonment rate. initiative that will be on the November ballot in Proposition 36 were to ass California California. could instead become the number one state in the This initiative would provide community rate of drug offender treatment. based substance abuse treatment programs for nonviolent defendants, probationers and parol- Currently I am working toward certification ees charged with simple drug possession or drugg as a substance abuse counselor. I also consider use offenses (see ADAW, May 1). An estimated myself a drug policy reform activist. These roles 37,000 people a year would be cycled out of the are concurrent and inseparable. criminal-justice system I believe that addiction and into treatment. is a condition caused by The definition of treat- and -contained within Acourt-designated treatment pro- ment is broadly applied. viler would create a treatment many environmental and Not only does it refer to psychological factors.I do inpatient, outpatient and program that serves as conditions not believe that nonvio- 12-Step therapies, but to of probation, but diversion does not lent drug users who are family counseling, job mean a free ride. convicted of possession training and literacy train- charges are best served by ing as well. incarceration. That's the easy way out. The court-designated treatment provider Not Only does drug treatment costa fraction would create a treatment program that serves as of the estimated$23,000 per inmate per year for conditions o£ probation, but diversion does not incarceration, but numerous studies have Found mean a free ride. Rules of behavior and conduct would apply. Clients violating their treatment in e that the gains to the and socia are sentences would be sanctioned, including pos- quantifiable and significant.invi sible incarceration. Passage of this act would positively affect the' lives of thousands of drug addicts and their A review by the state Supreme Court in families by providing:treatinent as a viable alter- Arizona,estate that passed a similar measure in native to incarceration. Many in the treatment 1996, has concluded that 71 percent of drug and medical field agree. A recent press confer- offenders who completed treatment were sue- ence in San Francisco announced endorsements cessful in staying off drugs. of the initiative by the California Nurses Associa- To facilitate the public-health oriented ap- tion, the California Society of Addiction Medi- proach embodied by this initiative,Proposition 36 cine, the San Francisco Medical Society and the calls for a$120 million annual appropriation to a California Association of Alcoholism and Drug Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund for live- Abuse Counselors. and-a-half years. This funding is in addition to An additional 21 drug treatment providers existing drug treatment funding and would cover across the state officially support the initiative. I the costs of expanding drug treatment,parole and encourage treatment providers in and out of state probation services. to review this initiative and determine if its As of June 1999, over 12 percent of the entire objectives resonate with their treatment philoso- prison population in California was made up of at W.druglreform.o ete text g he initiative is available offenders with a simple drug possession charge. That means that almost 20,000 people in this state Treed Wright is a freelance write rand drug policy are currently incarcerated solely because of a drug reform activist in San Francisco. She can be contacted possession conviction.This ranks California num- at treccewright@e.arthlink.net. Reprinted with permission from Manisses Communications Group, (800) 333-7771. Ir ors iuucA4 Urvom RmAt CowmGw inw ro REPQocxfcr Tres Pueocanory ori Aw PoRnoor o=for Win4our nit PususWR's PEaM M Nc. To: Mr.Chuck Deutschman Comp=V:County AOD PrSin Admin Assoc of CA Dain 925-313-6307 August 147 2000 , CESAR A A7 'off. 99 Issue 32 Distribution 4,516 University . of Maryland, College Park Smaller.laih Have Hz-gher Rates o,f lnDrug Use But Are Less T., Wy to Have a Treahnent Program The Bureau of Justice Statistics' 1998 survey of jails found that inmates in smaller jail jurisdictions had higher rates of positive drug tests than inmates in larger jurisdictions. The percentage of urine samples testing positive for at least one drug ranged from 28 percent in the smallest jail jurisdictions to 7 percent in the largest jail jurisdictions. At the same time, smaller jail jurisdictions were less likely to have treatment programs. Just over one-third of the smaller jail jurisdictions had a substance abuse treatment program, compared to 53 percent to 74 percent of j urisdictions with 100 or more inmates. While Inmates in Smaller Jail Jurisdictions Smaller Jail Jurisdictions Were fess Were More Likely to Test Positive. . . Likely to Have a Treatment Program 74% 62% svX s z ........._..,...._...................................._,.............._.<......._........_._......_._......._..__._. 60°/a -..<....,.. 6t}% ....... 53% ::.i..:iii• :-':`p' '.:.`.`" ••"'w:v:�. i�.:,'S„';rr.'.:ly'' 44°/a - 40°/a :srWru �. of 28°h fig/ vt ...a tit°i4t 42% ME 9°/a a ..iiv ;i•`'•' :jdcpr fi cc 00/0 {50 50•-99 100-749 250-499 5W999 1.000+ e50 50-99 100-249 250.499 500-999 1,600+ Number of Inmates in Jaft Jurisdiction Number of Inmates in Jati Jurisdiction NOTES: Data was obtained from a mailed survey of jail administrators in a representative sample of 820(out of 2,890)jail jurisdictions. A jail jurisdiction is a county or municipal govermnent that administers one or more local jails. The size of the jail jurisdiction is based on the average daily inmate population between July 1, 3997 and June 30, 1998. SOURCE: Bureau of Justice Statistics,"Drug Use,Testing,and Treatment in Jails,"Bureau o,fJustice Statistics Special Report May 2000. Available online at http://www.ojp.usdoj,gov/bjs/abstract/dutt.htm. •• 301403-8329(voice)-- 301-403-8342(fax)-- CESA.kcesar.uind.edu-- www.cesar.umd.edu CESAR FAX is supported by a grant from the Governor's Office of Crime Control&Prevention. CESAR.FAX may bo enpie4 without permission. Please cite CESAA as the source. To: W.Chuck Deutschman Company:County AOD Pqp Admin Assoc of CA Fats 925.313.6307 `+ KS.TDFMART?NfNT OFF HRA Tli'AX0 HWAK SFYRt NTS Sc&Awv=Abwc and Wi tal 11with Srrvic-a Admk6*w ion C~for s,dowoar A Terex wwViornimsov August 30, MW Vol. 5, Issm 13 BY FAX .Do Not Receive Needed Treatmenty for Severe Addiction The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration estimates that over 5 million persons in the U.S. were in need of treatment for severe drug abuse problems in 1998. Almost 60% of these people--an estimated 2.9 million—have not received treatment for their addiction. The sire of this treatment gap has remained relatively unchanged over the past 8 years, ranging from 54 percent to tib percent The most recent National Drug Control Strategy recommends several actions to close this gap, including increasing Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant funding, expanding services to vulnerable and underserved populations, and -using regulatory changes to make proven modalities more accessible. Estimated Number of Persons Needing Treatment for Severe Drug Abuse Problems and the Percentage Who B.eceived Treatment, 199149% 0 Received Treatment 0 Did Not Receive Treatment 7,000 6,000 -....._._._.._----__..... 511�`� � a�SJ�� Number of 5,000 ;71.8.-�•-�.-4,-?4 4;,{1- -`�bpi`"� Persons (in Thousands)4,000 - 63% 68% 62% 61% 57% 54% 63% 5$•/a 3,000 Opo x .s 1 Opo •�,�Vim. ;. •-„, I991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Year SOURCE: Office of National Drug Control Policy,"National Drug Control Strategy: 2000 Annual Report,"2000. Available online at http://www.whitehousednWolicy.gov/policy/ndcs.htrnL CSAT by Fax is a W-weeldy mon produced and distributed by facsimile under the Knowledge Application Program(KAP)contract 270-694072,and may be copied vftout permission+pith appropriate"on. To wbscrtse to LSAT by Fain cd f 324. For odditimW information about the contents of this issue,contact LSAT by Fax,4321 Hart"Road,Suite 501,College Park,MD 20740,telephone:(301)403-8329,tax:(:341)40341342;or asntaB rl g . For atd2ditiwW lnhrrnaataon on CSAT,please refer to the CSAT Web site at Y r saanhsa,ggvtcsxt/csat.htm,or calf(301) 4434452 CSAT Ofte of Cormr micartions and Fldemal Liaison, To: Mr.Chuck Deutschman Comp mr County AOD Prgin Admin Assoc of CA Fam 925-313-6307 AF f ME May 24, 2000 Vol.%'do"J4 SAO""kh AT $, Issue 6 Ify Fax 1-wal INM wwwwwwwo 14 1400ij!ox,101INWNWO 1whimw&wo wwwNhovkwo -------------I WM 10 91 110 10 110 w 9 11 IN�I WMANKMOAMAU Carter for SA arm Abuse T (CSAT) Sim Abuse arrd Meng Heald Serines Adm "on U.S of Heahh acrd Fiarrran se-Aces Cost-S"asings Earned by Subsftn *use Treahnmt Was Nearly $1.7Bfflian inn 1994 Providing substance abuse treatment resulted in a crust savings of nearly $1.7 billion in 1994, according to estimates derived from the National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study (NTIES). Over 340,000 clients are estimated to have received treatment from LSAT-supported programs in 1994,at an average cost-savings per treatment episode of$6„236(see MT by Far, Vol. 5, Issue 3). More than $2.7 billion was saved by providing substance abuse trreatment, compared to approximately $1 billion in treatment costs. The authors note that `'for policy makers who often face the difficult task of justifying to taxpayers the use of public funds to support treatment, [these] findings lend support to the argument that such programs can create benefits to society that justify the expenditures"(p. 33). Esdmat+ed Benefits from LSAT-Support Substance Abuse Treatment,In ll Wons, 1994 (n=341,523 clients estimated to have received LSAT-supported substance abuse treatment) T e t iterit `I�`eati ent-: fy Health Care Costs $678.2 $653.2 $24.9 Earnings $1,166.4 $1,550.0 $383.6 Crime-Related Costs $3,215.8 $922.2 $2;293.5 Total Benefits $2,702.1 Treatment Costs $1,004.4 NOTE: Figures in table may not precisely sum across rows or down columns due to rounding. SOURCE: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment(CSAT),rational Evaluation Data Services(KEDS),"The Costs and Benefits of Substance Abuse Treatment: Findings from the National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study(.NTIES),"August 1999. Available online at[http:(/reds.calib.com/products(pdfVccast- ben.pdf]. CSAT by Fmr is a bi-weeMy pubrkadon dila by facaimiie and nW be copied wittwt pertrission with appropriate dtadom For su saiptiorl kiammdan or coffvcdam please cad WaSM-6324. Outcome sidles and ottn rdew t data for povible reportlrg in MAT by lE"=may be sent tw C54T by FaK 4321 Kwtwtdc Poad.Suite 501,C AeSe Park MD 20740,tVc(301)403-0342 kJormadon about LSAT,its services and Its products s may be obtained by calling the CSAT C dice of Conwn riicadorrs and 6merra!Ualsan at(301)443-5052 Yes On Prop.36 http://www.drugreform.org/summary.t e .'s� Nes .�,�� Every additional dollar invested In substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers$7.45 In societal casts. .... ,- Prop, DO Dny W,,Poky Rva Mh C# RAND,10" P, s • ` e Pro } The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act A Smarter Drug Policy for California-Dver a Billion Dollars in Swings for Taxpayers Official Title and Summary Prepared by the Attorney General DRUGS. PROBATION AND TREATMENT PROGRAM. Initiative Statute. • Requires probation and drug treatment program, not incarceration, for conviction of possession, use,transportation for personal use or being under influence of controlled substances and similar parole violations, not including sale or manufacture. • Permits additional probation conditions except incarceration. • Authorizes dismissal of charges when treatment completed, but requires disclosure of arrest and conviction to law enforcement and for candidates, peace officers, licensure, lottery contractors,jury service; prohibits using conviction to deny employment, benefits, or license. • Appropriates treatment funds through 2005-2006;, prohibits use of these funds to supplant existing programs or for drug testing. Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: • Net savings to the state of between $100 million and $150 million annually, within several years of implementation. • Potential one-time avoidance of capital outlay costs to the state of between $450 million and $550 million in the long term. • Net savings to local government of about $40 million annually, within several years of implementation. Home Full Text Summary Prl~ssR�ea�esagt 1Il.y2d Contact Us I of 1 9/27/00 1:42 PN Yes 04 Prop.36 http://www,drugreform.org/fulltext.t + ,/' The average cost to the taxpayers (";*off of California per in-mat*,per year 1s P ` / $23,406.seoo+dcn «r .sra ,awvu a . SYa719Pka,fpQ7. iitf Pry The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act A Smarler Drug Policy for California-Over a Billion Dollars in Savings for Taxpayers SECTION 1. Title SE!QTION 2. Findi gs and Declarations SECTION 3. Purpose and went SECTION 4. Section 1210 is added to the Penal Code SECTION 5. Section 1210.1 is added to the Penal Cade SECTION 6. Section 3063.1 isadded to the Penal Cade SECTION 7. Division 10,8 is addcd to the ealth & Sakty Code SECTION S. Uketive Date SECTION 9, Amendmgnt SECTION.10. Severer i a SECTION 1.litk This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 21700." SECTION 2. Findings and Declarations The People of the State of California hereby find and declare all of the following: (a) Substance abuse treatment is a proven public safety and health measure. Non-violent, drug dependent criminal offenders who receive drug treatment are much less likely to abuse drugs and commit future crimes, and are likelier to live healthier, more stable and more productive lives. (b) Community safety and health are promoted, and taxpayer 1 of 14 9/27/00 1:43 PA Yes On Prop.36 http:Jtwww,drugreform.org/fulltext.q dollars are saved, when nonviolent persons convicted of drug possession or drug use are provided appropriate community-based treatment instead of incarceration. (c)In 1996, Arizona voters by a 2-1 margin passed the Drug Medicalization,Prevention, and Control Act which diverted non-violent drug offenders into drug treatment and education services rather than incarceration. According to a Report Card prepared by the Arizona Supreme Court,the Arizona law; is "'resulting in safer communities and more substance abusing probationers in recovery," has already saved state taxpayers millions of dollars, and is helping more than 75% of program participants to remain drug free. SECTION 3. Purpose and Intennt. The People of the State of California hereby declare their purpose and intent in enacting this Act to be as follows: (a) To divert from incarceration into community-based substance abuse treatment programs non-violent defendants, probationers and parolees charged with simple drug possession or drug use offenses, (b)To halt the wasteful expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars each year on the incarceration—and re-incarceration— of non-violent drug users who would be better served by community-based treatment; and (c) To enhance public safety by reducing drug-related crime and preserving jails and prison cells for serious and violent offenders, and to improve public health by reducing drug abuse and drug dependence through proven and effective drug treatment strategies. SECTION 4. Section 1210 is added to the Penal Cade to read. 1210. Definitions. As used in Penal Code sections 1210.1 and 3063.1, and Division 10.8 of the Health and Safety Code: (a)The term "non-violent drug possession offense" means the unlawful possession,use, or transportation for personal use of any controlled substance identified in Health and Safety Code sections 11054, 11055, 11056, 11057 or 11058, or the offense of being under the influence of a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11550. The term "non-violent drug possession offense" shall not include possession for sale, production, or manufacturing of any controlled substance. 2 of 14 9/27/00 1:43 Ply Yes On Prop,36 http://www.drugreform.org/fulltext.tl (b)The terms "drug treatment program" or"drug treatment" mean a licensed and/or certified community drug treatment program which may include one or more of the following: outpatient treatment,half-way house treatment, narcotic replacement therapy, drug education or prevention courses and/or limited inpatient or residential drug treatment as needed to address special detoxification or relapse situations or severe dependence. The terms "drug treatment program" or"drug treatment" shall not include drug treatment programs offered in a prison or jail facility. (c)The term "successful completion of treatment" means that a defendant who has had drug treatment imposed as a condition of probation has completed the prescribed course of drug treatment and, as a result, there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant will not abuse controlled substances in the future. (d)The term "misdemeanor not related to the use of drugs" means a misdemeanor that does not involve (1) the simple possession or use of drugs or drug paraphernalia,being present where drugs are used, or failure to register as a drug offender or (2) any activity similar to those listed in(d)(1) above. SECTION 5.Section 1210.1 is added to the Venal Cade to read. 1210.1 Possession Of Controlled Substances; Probation; Exceptions. (a)Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except as provided in subdivision(b), any person convicted of a non-violent drug possession offense shall receive probation. As a condition of probation the court shall require participation in and completion of an appropriate drug treatment program. The court may also impose as a condition of probation participation in vocational training, family counseling, literacy training and/or community service. A court may not impose incarceration as an additional condition of probation. Aside from the limitations imposed in this subdivision,the trial court is not otherwise limited in the type of probation conditions it may impose. In addition to any fine assessed under other provisions of law, the trial judge may require any person convicted of a non-violent drug possession offense who is reasonably able to do so to contribute to the cost of their own placement in a drug treatment program. (b) Subdivision(a) shall not apply to: 3 of 14 9/27/00 1:43 PA Yes On Prop.36 http://www.drugreform.org/fulltext.tl (1) Any defendant who has previously been convicted of one or more serious or violent felonies in violation of Penal Code sections 667.5(c) or 1192.7, unless the non-violent drug possession offense occurred after a period of 5 years in which the defendant remained free of both prison custody and the commission of an offense which results in(a) a felony conviction other than a non-violent drug possession offense or(b) a misdemeanor conviction involving physical injury or the threat of physical injury to another person. (2)Any defendant who, in addition to one or more non-violent drug possession offenses, has been convicted in the same proceeding of a misdemeanor not related to the use of drugs or any felony. (3)Any defendant who: (A)While using a firearm,unlawfully possesses any amount of(1)a substance containing either cocaine base, cocaine, heroin,methamphetamine, or(2) a liquid,non-liquid,plant substance, or hand-rolled cigarette, containing phencyclidine. (B) While using a firearm, is unlawfully under the influence of cocaine base, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine or phencyclidine. (4)Any defendant who refuses drug treatment as a condition of probation. (5)Any defendant who (a)has two separate convictions for non-violent drug possession offenses(b)has participated in two separate courses of drug treatment pursuant to subdivision(a)and(c) is found by the court, by clear and convincing evidence,to be unamenable to any and all forms of available drug treatment.Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the trial court shall sentence such defendants to 30 days in jail. (c) Within 7 days of an order imposing probation under subdivision(a), the probation department shall notify the drug treatment provider designated to provide drug treatment under subdivision(a). Within 30 days of receiving that notice, the treatment provider shall prepare a treatment plan and forward it to the probation department. On a quarterly basis after the defendant begins the drug treatment program, the treatment provider shall prepare and forward a progress report to the probation department. (1) If at any point during the course of drug treatment the 4 of 14 9/27/00 1.43 PM Yes Ori Prop.36 http://www.drugreform.orgifulltext.tl treatment provider notifies the probation department that the defendant is unamenable to the drug treatment being provided,but may be amenable to other drug treatments or related programs, the probation department may move the court to modify the terms of probation to ensure that defendant receives the alternative drug treatment or program. (2) If at any point during the course of drug treatment the treatment provider notifies the probation department that the defendant is unamenable to the drug treatment provided and all other forms of drug treatment,the probation department may move to revoke probation. At the revocation hearing,unless the defendant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a drug treatment program to which he is amenable,the court may revoke probation. (3)Drug treatment services provided by subdivision(a) as a required condition of probation may not exceed 12 months,provided, however, that additional aftercare services as a condition of probation may be required for up to six months. (d)Dismissal of charges upon successful completion of drug treatment. (1)At any time after completion of drug treatment,a defendant may petition the sentencing court for dismissal of the charges. If the court finds that defendant successfully completed drug treatment, and substantially complied with the conditions of probation,the conviction on which the probation was based shall be set aside and the court shall dismiss the indictment or information against the defendant. In addition,the arrest on which the conviction was based shall be deemed to have never occurred. Except as provided in subdivision(d)(2) and (d)(3)below, the defendant shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted. (2) Dismissal of an indictment or information pursuant to subdivision(d)(1) does not permit a person to own, possess, or have in his or her custody or control any firearm capable of being concealed upon the person or prevent his or her conviction under Penal Code section 12021. (3)Except as provided below, after an indictment or information is dismissed pursuant to subdivision(d)(1), the defendant may indicate in response to any question 5 of 14 9/27/00 1,43 PN Yes ori Prop.36 http://www.drugreform.org/fulltext.tr concerning his or her prior criminal record that he or she was not arrested or convicted for the offense. Except as provided below, a record pertaining to an arrest or conviction resulting in successful completion of a drug treatment program under this section shall not,without the defendant's consent, be used in any way that could result in the denial of any employment, benefit, license, or certificate Regardless of his or her successful completion of drug treatment, the arrest and conviction on which the probation was based may be recorded by the Department of Justice and disclosed in response to any peace officer application request or any law enforcement inquiry. Dismissal of an information or indictment under this section does not relieve a defendant of the obligation to disclose the arrest and conviction in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for public office, for a position as a peace officer as defined in section 830, for licensure by any state or local agency, for contracting with the California State Lottery, or for purposes of serving on a jury. (e)Violation of Probation. (l)Ifprobation is revoked pursuant to the provisions of this subdivision, the defendant may be incarcerated pursuant to otherwise applicable law without regard to the provisions of this section. (2)Non-drug related probation violations. Where a defendant receives probation under subdivision (a), and violates that probation either by being arrested for an offense that is not a nonviolent drug possession offense, or by violating a nondrug-related condition of probation, and the state moves to revoke probation,the court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether probation shall be revoked. The court may modify or revoke probation if the alleged violation is proved. (3) Drug related probation violations. (A) Where a defendant receives probation under subdivision(a), and violates that probation either by being arrested for a non-violent drug possession offense or by violating a drug-related condition of probation, and the state moves to revoke probation, the court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether probation shall be revoked, The trial court shall revoke probation if the alleged probation 6 of 14 9/27/00 1:43 PM Yes Uri Prop.36 http://www.drugreform.org/fulltext.tp violation is proved and the state proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant poses a danger to the safety of others. If the court does not revoke probation, it may intensify or alter the drug treatment plan. (B)Where a defendant receives probation under subdivision(a), and for the second time violates that probation either by being arrested for a non-violent drug possession offense, or by violating a drug-related condition of probation, and the state moves for a second time to revoke probation, the court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether probation shall be revoked. The trial court shall revoke probation if the alleged probation violation is proved and the state proves by a preponderance of the evidence either that the defendant poses a danger to the safety of others or is unamenable to drug treatment. In determining whether a defendant is unamenable to drug treatment,the court may consider,to the extent relevant,whether the defendant (1) has committed a serious violation of rules at the drug treatment program, (2)has repeatedly committed violations of program rules that inhibit the defendant's ability to function in the program, or(3) has-continually refused to participate in the program or asked to be removed from the program. If the court does not revoke probation, it may intensify or alter the drug treatment plan. (C) Where a defendant receives probation under subdivision(a), and for the third time violates that probation either by being arrested for a non-violent drug possession offense, or by violating a drug-related condition of probation, and the state moves for a third time to revoke probation,the court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether probation shall be revoked. If the alleged probation violation is proved, defendant is not eligible for continued probation under subdivision(a). (D)Where a defendant on probation at the effective date of this act for a non-violent drug possession offense violates that probation either by being arrested for a non-violent drug possession offense, or by violating a drug-related condition of probation, and the state moves to revoke probation, the court shall conduct a hearing to determine if probation shall be revoked. The trial court shall revoke probation if the alleged probation violation is proved and the state proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the 7 of 14 9/27/00 1:43 Piv Yes Oti Prop.36 http://www.drugreform.org/fulltext.tp defendant poses a danger to the safety of others. If the court does not revoke probation, it may modify probation and impose as an additional condition participation in a drug treatment program. (E)Where a defendant on probation at the effective date of this act for a non-violent drug possession offense violates that probation a second time either by being arrested for a non-violent drug possession offense, or by violating a drug-related condition of probation, and the state moves for a second time to revoke probation, the court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether probation shall be revoked. The trial court shall revoke probation if the alleged probation violation is proved and the state proves by a preponderance of the evidence either that the defendant poses a danger to the safety of others or is unamenable to drug treatment. If the court does not revoke probation, it may modify probation and impose as an additional condition participation in a drug treatment program. (F)Where a defendant on probation at the effective date of this act for a non-violent drug offense violates that probation a third time either by being arrested for a non-violent drug possession offense,or by violating a drug-related condition of probation, and the state moves for a third time to revoke probation,the court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether probation shall be revoked. If the alleged probation violation is proved,defendant is not eligible for continued probation under subdivision(a). SECTION 6. Section 3063.1 is added to the Penal Code to read: 3063.1. Possession Of Controlled Substances; Parole; Exceptions. (a)Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except as provided in subdivision(b),parole may not be suspended or revoked for commission of a non-violent drug possession offense or for violating any drug-related condition of parole. As an additional condition of parole for all such offenses or violations, the Parole Authority shall require participation in and completion of an appropriate drug treatment program. Vocational training, family counseling and literacy training may be imposed as additional parole conditions. The Parole Authority may require any person on parole who commits a non-violent drug possession offense or violates any drug-related condition of parole, and who is reasonably able to 8 of 14 9/27/00 1:43 PM Yes On Prop.36 http://www.drugrefonn.org/fuittext.tl do so, to contribute to the cost of their own placement in a drug treatment program. (b) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to: (1) Any parolee who has been convicted of one or more serious or violent felonies in violation of Penal Code sections 667.5(c) or 1192.7. (2) Any parolee who,while on parole commits one or more non-violent drug possession offenses and is found to have concurrently committed a misdemeanor not related to the use of drugs or any felony. (3)Any parolee who refuses drug treatment as a condition of parole. (c) Within 7 days of a finding that the parolee has either committed a non-violent drug possession offense or violated any drug-related condition of parole, the Parole Authority shall notify the treatment provider designated to provide drug treatment under subdivision(a). Within 30 days thereafter the treatment provider shall prepare a drug treatment plan and forward it to the Parole Authority and to the California Department of Corrections Parole Division Agent responsible for supervising the parolee. On a quarterly basis after the parolee begins drug treatment,the treatment provider shall prepare and forward a progress report to these entities and individuals, (1)If at any point during the course of drug treatment the treatment provider notifies the Parole Authority that the parolee is unamenable to the drug treatment provided,but amenable to other drug treatments or related programs,the Parole Authority may act to modify the terms of parole to ensure that the parolee receives the alternative drug treatment or program. (2) If at any point during the course of drug treatment the treatment provider notifies the Parole Authority that the parolee is unamenable to the drug treatment provided and all other forms of drug treatment, the Parole Authority may act to revoke parole. At the revocation hearing,parole may be revoked unless the parolee proves by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a drug treatment program to which he is amenable. (3) Drug treatment services provided by subdivision (a) as a required condition of parole may not exceed 12 months, provided, however, that additional aftercare services as a condition of probation may be required for up to six 9 of 14 9/27/00 1:43 PN Yes On Prop.36 http://www.drugreform.org/fulltext.t months. (d) Violation of Parole. (1) If parole is revoked pursuant to the provisions of this subdivision, the defendant may be incarcerated pursuant to otherwise applicable law without regard to the provisions of this section. (2)Non-drug related parole violations. Where a parolee receives drug treatment under subdivision (a), and during the course of drug treatment violates parole either by being arrested for an offense other than a non-violent drug possession offense, or by violating a non drug-related condition of parole, and the Parole Authority acts to revoke parole, a hearing shall be conducted to determine whether parole shall be revoked. Parole may be modified or revoked if the parole violation is proved. (3)Drug related parole violations. (A) Where a parolee receives drug treatment under subdivision(a), and during the course of drug treatment violates parole either by being arrested for a non-violent drug possession offense, or by violating a drug-related condition of parole, and the Parole Authority acts to revoke parole, a hearing shall be conducted to determine whether parole shall be revoked. Parole shall be revoked where the parole violation is proved and a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the parolee poses a danger to the safety of others. If parole is not revoked, the conditions of parole may be intensified to achieve the goals of drug treatment. (B) Where a parolee receives drug treatment under subdivision(a), and during the course of drug treatment for the second time violates that parole either by being arrested for a non-violent drug possession offense, or by violating a drug-related condition of parole, and the Parole Authority acts for a second time to revoke parole, a hearing shall be conducted to determine whether parole shall be revoked. If the alleged parole violation is proved the parolee is not eligible for continued parole under any provision of this section and may be re-incarcerated. (C) Where a parolee already on parole at the effective date of this act violates that parole either by being arrested for a non-violent drug possession offense, or 10 of 14 9/27/001:43 P; Yes O) Prop.36 http://www.drugreform.org/fulltext.ti by violating a drug-related condition of parole, and the Parole Authority acts to revoke parole, a hearing shall be conducted to determine whether parole shall be revoked. Parole shall be revoked where the parole violation is proved and a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the parolee poses a danger to the safety of others. If parole is not revoked, the conditions of parole may be modified to include participation in a drug treatment program as provided in subdivision(a). This paragraph will not apply to any parolee who at the effective date of this act has been convicted of one or more serious or violent felonies in violation of Penal Code sections 667.5(c) or 1192.7. (D) Where a parolee already on parole at the effective date of this act violates that parole for the second time either by being arrested for a non-violent drug-possession offense, or by violating a drug-related condition of parole, and the Parole Authority acts for a second time to revoke parole, a hearing shall be conducted to determine whether parole shall be revoked. If the alleged parole violation is proved, the parolee is not eligible for continued parole under any provision of this section and may be re-incarcerated. SECTION 7. Division 10.8 is added to the Health & Safety Code to read: Division 10.8. Substance Abuse Treatment Funding. 11999.4 Establishment Of The Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund. A special fund to be known as the "Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund" is created within the State Treasury which is continuously appropriated for carrying out the purposes of this division. 119995 Funding Appropriation Upon passage of this Act, $60,000,000 shall be continuously appropriated from the General Fund to the Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund for the 2000-2001 fiscal year. There is hereby continuously appropriated from the General Fund to the Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund an additional $120,000,000 annually for the 2001-2002 fiscal year, and an additional sum of$120,000,000 in each such subsequent fiscal year concluding with the 2005-2006 fiscal year. These funds shall be transferred to the Substance Abuse Treatment Trust 11 of 14 9/27/00 1:43 PN, Yes Can Prop.36 http://www.drugreform.org/Mitext.t Fund on July 1 of each of these specified fiscal years. Funds transferred to the Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund are not subject to annual appropriation by the Legislature and may by used without a time limit. Nothing in this section shall preclude additional appropriations by the Legislature to the Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund. 11999.6 Distribution Of Monies From Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund Monies deposited in the Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund shall be distributed annually by the secretary of the Health and Welfare Agency through the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs to counties to cover the costs of placing persons in and providing(1) drug treatment programs under this Act and(2)vocational training, family counseling and literacy training under this Act. Additional costs that may be reimbursed from the Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund include probation department costs, court monitoring costs and any miscellaneous costs made necessary by the provisions of this Act other than drug testing services of any kind. Such monies shall be allocated to counties through a fair and equitable distribution formula that includes, but is not limited to, per capita arrests for controlled substance possession violations and substance abuse treatment caseload, as determined by the department as necessary to-carry out the purposes of this Act. The department may reserve a portion of the fund to pay for direct contracts with drug treatment service providers in counties or areas in which the department director has determined that demand for drug treatment services is not adequately met by existing programs. However,nothing in this section shall be interpreted or construed to allow any entity to use funds from the Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund to supplant funds from any existing fund source or mechanism currently used to provide substance abuse treatment. 11999.7 Local Government Authority to Control Location of Drug Treatment Programs Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no community drug treatment program may receive any funds from the Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund unless the program agrees to make its facilities subject to valid local government zoning ordinances and development agreements. 11999.8 Surplus Funds Any funds remaining in the Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund at the end of a fiscal year may be utilized to pay for drug treatment programs to be carried out in the subsequent fiscal year. 12 of 14 9/27/00 1:43 Pr Yes On Prop.36 http://www.drugreform.orWfulltext.tl 119999 Annual Evaluation Process The department shall annually conduct a study to evaluate the effectiveness and financial impact of the programs which are funded pursuant to the requirements of this Act. The study shall include, but not be limited to, a study of the implementation process, a review of lower incarceration costs, reductions in crime, reduced prison and jail construction, reduced welfare costs, the adequacy of funds appropriated, and any other impacts or issues the department can identify. 11999.10 Outside Evaluation Process The department shall allocate up to 0.5% of the fund's total monies each year for a long term study to be conducted by a public university in California aimed at evaluating the effectiveness and financial impact of the programs which are funded pursuant to the requirements of this Act. 11999.11 County Reports Counties shall submit a report annually to the department detailing the numbers and characteristics of clients-participants served as a result of funding provided by this Act. The department shall promulgate a form which shall be used by the counties for the reporting of this information, as well as any other information that may be required by the department. The department shall establish a deadline by which the counties shall submit their reports. 11999.12 Audit Of Expenditures The department shall annually audit the expenditures made by any county which is funded, in whole or in part, with funds provided by this Act. Counties shall repay to the department any funds that are not spent in accordance with the requirements of this Act. 11999.13 Excess Funds At the end of each fiscal year, a county may retain unspent funds received from the Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund and may spend those funds, if approved by the department, on drug programs that further the purposes of this Act. SECTION 8. Effective Date Except as otherwise provided, the provisions of this Act shall become effective July 1, 2001, and its provisions shall be applied prospectively. 13 of 14 9/27/00 1:43 PN Yes On Prop.36 http://www.drugreform.org/fulltext.t, SECTION 9. Amendment This Act may be amended only by a roll call vote of two-thirds of the membership of both houses of the Legislature. All amendments to this Act shall be to further the Act and shall be consistent with its purposes. SECTION 10. Severability If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this initiative which can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this initiative are severable. Return to the ton Home IFu 1 Text Summary Ea= Press Releases QDA Involved Contact Us 14 of 14 9/27/00 1:43 PT Yes On Prop.36 http://www.drugreform.org/de.t Yes ��,! Approximately 37,000 offenders will be diverted from the California �� correctional system Into community- L,l based treatment programs. 1 —F180W EAid W 776 SubsW"Abuw and Gime Av." n Ac! 0/200A-Caft eLlylda7M Ana W'!Offlm V9 ! a Prop 36 The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act A Smarter Drug Policy for California-Over a Billion Dotlars.In Savings for Taxpayers Drug Courts: Solution or Sacred Cow? Prop. 36 and the experimental drug court system in California are very similar, since both provide court-supervised drug treatment as an alternative to jail time. This series of compare-and-contrast fact sheets examines the shortcomings of drug courts today in light of how Proposition 36 would operate statewide. Issue #1: Drug Courts Have Limited Reach Issue #2: Dangerous Benefits for Felons Issue #3: Inconsistent Eligibility-Standards Home Full Tet, Summary Facts Press Releases t loy l„ed Contact us 1 of I 9/27/00 1:58 PA Drug Courts: Solution or i i Issue #1 Drug Court, Have .limited .peach Despite several years of growth, today the drug court system in California reaches only a fraction of all potentially eligible drug-abusing defendants---perhaps 5%. San Diego -County- The ounty-The four-court program was called "enormous" in a June 2000 report published by the national lobby for drug courts. But: • 197 people "graduated" from the program in 1999 nearly 17,000 people were arrested for drug possession in San Diego County in 1998 more than 11,000 people were convicted of drug possession in 1998 • the four-branch drug court processes 1.7% of all potential defendants each year Centra Costa Ventura County • Contra Costa County has a population of 916,4D0--- with 41 people currently enrolled in drug court • Ventura County has a population of 742,000— with 18 people currently enrolled in drug court Santa Clara County • The adult drug court does not accept first-time offenders Statewide • In 1998, 37,084 jail and prison sentences were imposed on defendants convicted of simple felony drug possession i t • � i s requires probation and drug treatment for ag first and second drug possession convictions. Some offenders are excluded due to prior violent or serious felonies, or conviction for another crime in the same proceeding.The Legislative Analyst estimates that Prop. 36 will place 25,000 drug offenders in treatment upon conviction each year. Produced by California Campaign for New Drug Policies/Yes on Prop.36 1260 sixth street#242•Santa Monica,CA 90401 •(310)394.2952.fax:(310)451.7494 1121 L Street#908-Sacramento,CA 95814•(916)449.6190•fax:(916)449.6199 Drug Courts: Solution or Sacred ! Issue #2 Dangerous Benefits for Felons The "carrot" offered to encourage drug court defendants to complete the program is dismissal of charges. But that dismissal has very broad implications for the drug court graduate---and for society. Loopholes in the law authorizing drug courts to set aside the charges of defendants negate other laws intended to limit the activities of felons. Gun Possession Current California law (PC 12021) makes it a crime for any person convicted of a felony to have a gun is his or her possession. Though most drug court clients did commit a felony---drug possession or similar crimes --if they complete the program, their charges are dismissed and nothing prevents them from possessing firearms. Employment Other sections of California law restrict the benefit of dismissal of charges more completely than the law authorizing drug courts to grant this benefit (PC 1000.4). Disclosure is variously required when contracting with the state Lottery, when applying to run for public office, and as necessary to obtain state or local agency licenses, restrictions that do not apply to drug court graduates. There is only one limitation on the future employment of a drug court graduate--the arrest and/or conviction must be disclosed on an application to work as a peace officer. Whether or not the individual provides this information, the Department of Justice is authorized to disclose the drug court graduate's criminal histpry in such a case. "Jury Services After completing drug court, a drug offender may legally fill out a juror application without indicating that he or she was arrested or convicted for the crime erased by the drug court judge. ... limits the benefit of dismissal of charges in several ways that drug courts do not. Persons who have drug charges dismissed are specifically prohibited from possessing guns. They are also required to disclose the conviction when applying for a job as a peace officer, for a license with a state or local agency, when contracting with the California State Lottery, or when applying to run for public office. f=inally, the conviction must be disclosed on a jury service application. Produced by California campaign for New Drug Policies/Yes on Prop.36 1250 Sixth Street#202•Santa Monica,CA 90401-(310)394.2952•fax:(310)451.7494 1121 L Street#908-Sacramento,CA 95814-(916)449.6190•fax:(916)449.6199 Drug Courts: Solution or Sacred Cow? Issue #3 Inconsistent Eligibility Standards Drug courts are highly localized, with wide variation in the standards used to determine which defendants may participate. Some standards conflict from county to county. Even if a person seems to meet the drug court's criteria, and there is space available, final approval is almost always up to the district attorney. First O f�,pders Only Many drug courts seek to redirect drug users before they become heavily involved, and as a result accept only first-time drug offenders. Examples include the drug courts in the following counties:Madera, Glenn, Los Angeles (Southeast Drug Court). Hard-Core Addicts Only The adult drug courts in Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and Solano counties require a history of arrests for drug possession. San Joaquin and Contra Costa County require a person to have an extensive drug abuse history, irrespective of arrests. Sales or No Sales? Drug dealers are not welcome in most drug courts, but some low-level sales offenders are accepted in Los Angeles and Mendocino counties, among others. Subjective Factors All defendants are screened before entering a drug court program. For example, Fresno County conducts three "assessments," one each by the district attorney, probation department and a treatment professional. Sonoma County accepts those with a supportive family who display "willingness, sincerity and interest." iscellaneous Exclusions No "developmentally disabled" defendants are accepted by the San Luis Obispo County drug court. Plumas County excludes alcoholics and "dual-diagnoses" (mental health and drug problems). Madera County refuses anyone with a felony conviction within the previous five years. San Diego County excludes "identified gang members," while Placer County's court accepts only Placer County residents. # • • i 0 ... applies to all first-and second-time drug possession offenders, unless they are specifically excluded by terms of the initiative. Exclusions include conviction for a non-drug crime at the same time as the drug possession charge, or having a prior conviction for a serious or violent felony, unless the person has been free of prison custody and has committed no felonies for five years. Produced by California campaign for New Drug Policies f Yes on Prop.36 1250 Sixth Street#202•Santa Monica,CA 90401 •(310)394.2952•fax:(310)451.7494 1121 L street#908•Sacramento,CA 95814•(916)449.6190-fax:(916)449.6199 �` i .4�"' oriffl0w Campaign � j7 NewDrugPofides Fact Sheet '14� Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 A California Voter initiative -- November 2000 The Substance Abuse and gime Prevention Act is being sponsored by the California Campaign for New Drug Policies.The purpose of this initiative is to enhance public safety by reducing drug-related crime and preserving jail and prison space for violent offenders.The initiative will provide community- based substance abuse treatment programs for non-violent defendants, probationers, and parolees charged with simple drug possession or drug use Every additional dollar offenses.According to the Legislative Analyst's Office,this initiative will result in a net savings of approximately$1.5 billion for the counties and state combined invested in substance over the next five years. abuse treatment saves Specifically,this Act will be implemented in the following manner. taxpayers $7.46 in *People convicted of a non-violent drug possession offense will receive probation societal costs. and court-supervised treatment services designed specifically for each — Drug Policy Research Center, individual and community. Parolees with no serious or violent prior felonies RAND.1994 may also be diverted into this treatment system if they violate-a drug-related condition of parole,rather than facing re-incarceration; The average cost to •People placed into a treatment program as a condition of probation or parole the taxpayers of are subject to certain rules of behavior;if they violate these rules, the form of California per en- treatment and supervision may be intensified or, in some cases, probation or mate, per year is parole may be revoked.The person will then be subject to current law,including possible incarceration; $23,406. --Sourcebook of Criminal Justice -The initiative appropriates an additional $120,000,000 annually to a newly statistics, Bureau of Justice created Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund for five and a half years, statistics,1997 beginning January 1, 2001. This appropriation is to be in addition to existing drug treatment funding,to cover the costs of expanding treatment,probation, The average cost of a and parole services for thousands of newly eligible non-violent drug offenders; full treatment p ro- •Research will refine the implementation of the measure—the initiative requires gram per client is annual reports and a separate long-term impact study;and $4.300. *Once treatment has been successfully completed,defendants may petition the --National Treatment Evaluation court to dismiss the drug-related conviction. study, Center for substance g Abuse and Treatment,1997 The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act will benefit many addicted offenders,while providing the needed funds to provide effective drug treatment. A complete text of the initiative is available at our website, wvwwv.drugrefonn.org. 1250 Sixth Street#202 -Santa Monica,CA 90401- (310)394.2952 -fax: (3x0)451•7494 1121 L Street#908-Sacramento,CA 9581.4- (916)449.6190-fax: (916)449.6199 www.drugreform.org n .155 Califomffl"07�,, Y 36 es on Prop. Campaignj�� NewDrugPo�des Children and ramifies and the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act A California Voter Initiative -- November 2000 The SubstanceAbuse and Crime Prevention is crafted to enhance California's Approximately 1.4 quality of life by treating addicted individuals,reducing drug-related crime and preserving jail and prison space for violent offenders.Implementing these poli- million of the nation's cies will help create healthier and more productive families and communities. inmates either com- The cycle of addiction and criminality is often passed from generation to witted crimes related generation. Families with one or more members addicted to drugs become dys- to drugs or have a functional. Untreated addiction -- and crime associated with this health prob- history of substance lem -- can become a family norm. Children from these families often lose one or both of their parents, forcing them to fend for themselves, to be raised by abuse.These inmates relatives, or into foster homes. Brothers and sisters can be separated from one have an estimated 2.4 another and from the only life they've known. million children, Young people with caretakers addicted to drugs are doubly impacted when many of whom are these family members are incarcerated. Research presented at the 1998. Ameri- can Sociological Association conference showed that youths from family struc- currently minors. tures where the main caretakers are absent are twice as likely to be incarcerated ---B&W SwW sw AWW end 's Pdson during their live-span as their peers from intact families. Both family and com- Na6xd r,+r�and munity are better served by placing addicted family members in treatment in- SuesWx eAt m,98 stead of in prison. Following treatment, To accomplish that, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act will 19 percent more provide $120 million annually to a broad range of community-based substance persons received abuse treatment programs for non-violent defendants, probationers, and parol- income from jobs ees charged with simple drug possession or drug use offenses. and 11 percent fewer .Many additional programs that will help strengthen families and communi- persons received ties are included within the Act's scope.Examples include,vocational training, welfare payments. family counseling, and literacy training. Breaking the cycle of addiction and —The NetionalTreatment ar ftdy incarceration will return many non-violent, addicted offenders to their families U S.Department ofHealth and ready to act as productive workers,parents and role models. Fbmen series, .ye All research references are available upon request. 1250 Sixth Street*202 - Santa Monica, CA 90401 - (310) 394.2952 - fait. (310)451.7494 11211,Street x90£3 - Sacramento, CA 95814 - (916) 449.6190 - fax. (916)449.6199 www.drugreform.org Cal. " Yes on Prop, Campaigni�� 36 NewDrugPohdes Effectiveness of Drug Treatment and the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act A California Voter Initiative -- November 2000 The SubstanceAbuse and gime PreventionAct of 2000 seeks to divert non- An additional violent drug offenders out of the criminal justice system and into drug treatment, dollar invested in Research shows that treatment improves drug users' health, reduces criminal activity, and saves precious tax dollars. treatment for Treatment improves the health of drug addicts and reduces related health Cocaine addiction care costs placed on the public.The 1994 California Drug and Alcohol Treatment results in $7.46 Assessment(CALDATA)found that people receiving alcohol and drug treatment worth of savings were hospitalized one-third less often after completing treatment than before in societal costs. entering such a program. And the 1995 National Treatment Improvement —ung ;,ne:&pply Evaluation Study (NTIES) found that substance abuse-related medical visits vs DemandPrograms,Rand,S4 decreased by more than 50 percent following treatment,while in-patient mental Outpatient metha- health visits decreased by more than 25 percent done treatment Treatment is the most cost-effective way to deal with drug dependent persons. reduces criminal The CALDATA report found that a dollar invested in alcohol and drug treatment results in over seven dollars in social savings due to reductions in crime and activittJ by $� health care costs.Another 1994 study by the Rand Corporation found that each percent. additional dollar invested in treatment for cocaine addiction resulted in $7.45 —Drug Abuse Treatment worth of savings in societal cost due to reduced crime and increased productivity. outcome study, Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, `97 Treatment was rated as 14 times more effective than incarceration in reducing these social costs of drug abuse. Following treat Treatment also reduces the criminal activity of drug dependent persons. tllent, 19 percent According to the CALDATA report, criminal activity declined by two-thirds more persons after treatment. The NTIES found that individuals who completed treatment received income were arrested 64 percent less likely to be arrested in the 12 months following from jobs and l l treatment than they had been in the 12 months preceding treatment. The 1997 DrugAbuse Treatment Outcome Study(DATCS)found that outpatient methadone percent fearer treatment reduced criminal activity by 57 percent. persons received Finally, treatment can improve employment opportunities and reduce welfare income. The Nationalt ont dependence on welfare for drug dependent individuals. The NTIES research Improvement Evaluation found that 19 percent more persons received income from jobs within 12 months study, U.S. Department of of completing treatment,and 11 percent fewer persons received welfare benefits. Health and Human Services, All research references are available upon request, 1250 Sixth Street#202 a Santa Monica, CA 90401 + (310) 394.2952 • fax: (310) 451.7494 1121 L Street#908 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • (916) 449.6190 * fax: (916)449.6199 www,drugreform.org .n„( ;__ s Carat Yes on Prop. 3( Campaignj�� New Drug., Pohdes Minority Communities and the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act A California Voter initiative -- November 2000 The ravages of drug addiction and heavy-handed drug enforcement policies have hit minority communities the hardest.Drug Fifty`fOur percent�� use levels are relatively consistent across racial lines. However, blacks convicted of minorities are much more likely to be convicted on drug-related drug offenses charges, and have considerably less access to treatment facilities. According to federal government statistics, in 1996, 5.2 percent of receive prison Hispanics, 6.1 percent of whites, and 7.5 percent of blacks admitted sentences versus to using illicit drugs within the past month. In that same year, 23 thirty-four percent percent of the people sentenced to state prisons for drug offenses of whites convicted were .Hispanic, 20 percent were white, and 57 percent were black:. However, the individuals who were admitted into treatment in 1996 of the same crimes. were 10.5 percent Hispanic, 73.3 percent white, and 24.9 percent --Sourcebook ofCriminal black. Justice Statistics,BJS, 196 The Substance Abuse and gime Prevention Act will create a Between lel and diversion-to-treatment system for all non-violent, drug possession 1995, three Hispanic offenders.Any individual,regardless of race or economic status,will be able to enter treatment if they meet the criteria for diversion. gales were added Treatment costs will be covered for those who need assistance, and to the prison all treatment regimens will be designed for each individual offender. population for every The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act defines one added to treatment to include many programs that will help strengthen families California's four- and communities.Examples include,but are not limited to,vocational year public training, family counseling, literacy training, drug education and prevention,as well as out-patient and residential treatment programs. universities. Breakingg many Education vs.. ; Higher the cycle of addiction and incarceration will bring cuss Dismissed: Corrections non-violent,addicted offenders back to their families and communities During the Wilson Years, ready to serve as productive parents and role models. Justice Policy Institute, 198 All research references are available upon request. 1250 Sixth Street#202 + Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 394.2952 + fax: (310) 451.7494 1121 L Street#908 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • (91.6)449.6190 . fax: (916)449.6199 w.drugreform.org . Ilr f 36 Yes on Prop. Campaipfi�� NewDrugPohdes Treatment Providers and the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act A California Voter Initiative — November 2000 The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act will greatly expand resources for drug treatment in California. The initiative creates the Substance Abuse Treatment Fund,which will be overseen by the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (ADP). Upon passage of this Act, $60 million will be appropriated to the Substance The cost of Abuse Treatment Fund from the General Fund for the final six months of the 2000-2001 fiscal year. An additional $120 million will be appropriated during each of the five treating subsequent fiscal years,concluding in 2005-2006.The initiative stipulates that these funds cannot take the place of funds from any existing mechanism used to provide substance approximately abuse treatment,-but rather must serve as additional resources for drug treatment. 150,000 people The Substance Abuse Treatment Fund will be allocated to the counties to cover was $209 million, the costs of placing persons diverted out of the criminal justice system under this Act into community-based drug treatment programs. Community-based treatment may which saved include,but is not limited to,in-or out-patient services,vocational training,educational California services, and maintenance therapies. The allocation process to the counties will be based on a fair and equitable distribution formula to be defined by ADP after passage. taxpayers abort Allocation decision factors include per capita arrests for controlled substance possession violations,treatment bed availability,and individual offender needs.Under any scenario, $1.5 billion. this will mean considerable new resources for every community to spend on providing —General Report drug treatment.The.State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs may also use a CALDATA, '94 portion of the fund to pay for direct contracts with drug treatment service providers in counties where it has been determined that such services are not adequately available. Non-violent,low-level drug offenders who meet the criteria for diversion under elle )elle) of this Act will be given probation by the court.The treatment provider designated by the criminal activity court to best meet the needs of the individual offender—now client—will then create a treatment regimen that will become the conditions of that individual's probation. declined by tGllo- If the treatment provider determines that the client is not responding to the thirds from specific treatment regimen,they suggest a new treatment program and ask the probation before treatment department to move the court to modify the terms of probation to ensure that the client receives the alternate program. However, if at any point the drug treatment provider to after notifies the probation department that the client is unamenable to all forms of drug treatment. treatment,the probation department may move the court to revoke probation.Once the treatment provider has determined that their client has successfully P Ccompleted the C General Report ALDA7A, "94 treatment regimen, the provider will report back to the probation department that the treatment-related conditions of probation have been met.At any point thereafter, the offender may apply directly to the court for expungement of his or her record. All research references are available upon request. 1250 Sixth Street#202 • Santa Monica, CA 90401 • (310) 394.2952 • fax: (310) 451.7494 1121 L Street#908 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • (916) 449.6190 * fax: (916)449.6199 vv wv.drugreform.org Cali CampaignjT- NewDrugo� Public Safety Crime Reduction and the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act A California Voter Initiative — November 2000 The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 will divert low- Treatment reduces level, non-violent drug possession offenders out of the criminal justice system and into drug treatment and other rehabilitation services, including vocational criminal activity by training,family counseling,and literacy training.A number of studies have shown 72 percept that drug treatment reduces drug abuse,drug dealing and criminal activity,and, Report ratcATA -94 as a result, improves public safety. The 1994 California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment Adult basic educa- (CALDATA)found that among previously criminal offenders,72 percent stopped tion programs result committing crimes after receiving treatment and 74 percent reduced their use of in$2.40 in benefit weapons and physical force after completing treatment services.The National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study (NTIES) found that arrests for per dollar spent on shoplifting declined by 82 percent, drug dealing declined by 78 percent, and arrests for any crime were reduced by 64 percent among those who completed a the program. designated treatment program. Seneft of F�ogmms to Reduce 0rre"Weshkvton ate .Employed ex-offenders are less likely to commit crimes to support /ns&&efor PubricPoky,,X99 themselves and their families.However,getting a job requires marketable skills. Vocational training and adult education help build such skills, and they have Between 10,OW and been found to provide returns many times greater than their initial costs. The 12,OQ prison beds, Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act provides for vocational training to be among the possible requirements for diverted offenders. currently used by The Washington State Institute for Public Policy found that providing non-violent drug job counseling and job search programs for inmates leaving prison resulted in a offenders, will be combined taxpayer and crime-victim benefit of $4.00 for every dollar spent. Adult basic education programs resulted in$2.40 in benefits per dollar of cost, available to Clouse Finally,by diverting nonviolent drug offenders out of the criminal justice dangerous, violent system, more jail and prison cells will be available for violent offenders. criminals. According to the state Legislative Analyst's Office,between 10,000 and 12,000 —Fiscial Effectet'The prison beds,and about 2,800 jail beds will be freed up by the Substance Abuse Substame Abuse and Came Prevention Ate of 20W and Crime PreventionAct.More available space in California's prisons and jails cffiffomia Legisl.WveAnalyst's means that more violent criminals will be kept off the streets longer. office, 199 All research references are available upon request, 1250 Sixth Street#202•Santa Monica,CA 90401•(310)394.2952,fax.:(310)451.7494 1121 L Street#9o8• Sacramento,C.A. 95814•(916)449.6190•fax: (916)449.6199 www.drugreform.org �r C a1 ifoM Campa1gtif(o,r._ ...,,- NewD� Pohd California Taxpayers and the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act A California Voter initiative — November 2000 Prosecuting the"war on drugs"has cost California taxpayers dearly.The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act would reduce the cost of the drug State savings(net): war by focusing on drug treatment and prevention, rather than incarceration. $100 to$150 million The measure would save state and county governments approximately Sl.. billion over next five Years.The California Legislative Analyst's Office(LAO)and annually the state Department of Finance project these savings from: Prison operations and parole savings. California could reduce the One-time savings of number of state prison beds needed for drug offenders by between 10,000 and $475 to$575 million 12,000 within a few years of enacting this initiative. This would result in net savings to the state of between $100 million and $150 million annually, after on prison factoring in the initiative's appropriation of $120 million per year for drug construction treatment and other services. (The initiative provides five years' worth of appropriations to cover its programs.)With fewer drug offenders entering prisons, the state would gradually see a reduction of about 9,500 parolees per year,with Counttp-level savings in parole management costs of$20 million annually. savings:$50 million County-level savings. If this initiative becomes law, far fewer drug annually defendants will contest their cases in court, and more will go into treatment programs instead of county jails. Savings of $50 million annually in county, expenditures will result from these changes. Overall savings: Delayed or avoided prison construction.Currently,the state is expected $1.5 billion over five to need to pay for construction of another new state prison by 2003. However, years the LAO and Dept. of Finance project that if this initiative is approved, "the state's prison system will grow significantly more slowly,"providing a one-time ..._Anao.is byC fun a savings of between$475 million and$575 million in deferred or avoided prison Legzlahve Analyst`s onfce mm [�epalment ofFinence construction costs. All research references are available upon request. 12501 Sixth Street#202•Santa Monica,CA 90401-(310)394.2952•fax:(310)451.7494 1121 L Street#gob»Sacramento,CA 95814•(9i6)449.61go•fax:(916)449.61g9 www.drugreform.org F'-.;&m:Dale W.Wagerman To:Deutschman,Chick Oaten 6129= Time:3.12:16 PM Paye 5 of 6 a� EDITORIAL MOO,JUNE..9i 2QO6 rreatmO -n .hodPr son n tenr;s of, drug poi1cy been '.tiy n the same gpprgadh to ;44m,_die Orug'Treat*l drugs•for, e.D-d t-3tt re iis`md it initiative isn't y • -•' d t be vn Nvv4mbe?s ci nim d'with;people.geztiirg an . I,baWt is quite itodest In edudgdoit in �.��►:too get away of what is ' " y feas€- wit xk-n+e*Vie,• are•readily ry it'represecits a Ii , -step-inn am ion to MIw V 'off ;ht direptcoYt, neathp, h4ve.more e The i hive would set:+tip�a,•sys� and pus`• ft cops,and' n of gi batio sail treats ,fa� nob g f -�bii: fer:It's tibie, n�viol °* gf�eac t9 try,a.diff' �a peoa* s bndWi&tncr' Ids# ' riew or violent gr*off metanot , jmd it OPIe in thesi megrims woWd be doesn't work for`ev'efy6ae.Puning bject to cortana,rules,and if tt Y -More�xarmey hkw dig ttreatinent �� or parole,tl ► c ttfs-tbe.rc of the be sub j&i.to the coir- ThkapeUod ftte. nil.the idea ftt lit*.W l �rerimel�t sMuld have a,pm • - The idea-is dW if a.person bas a •grana.tom'"overy persoital problem 3robI start rather tbm-ens o waghW p� .nit. that doesn't w6r•k or - " � ttter+cxiUar+es.Then jazz ut• Ie ih prion be- mes nta play. - . cause ,-,=ro ems lid' ti Is ing the6ruse of of WY ion 200,-passedla Arizona in basun 'it has made.evary ?b aricY ed in 1998.The asp kat of this society's dmg prob- jzona Se Court reported lreuis wom Rinca^eases real e, at in its• `pear of operatkn and offic id motion at every It s*em saved taxpayers$2-S Ievel.It's time fdr a diff a-int-ap- 11un•and 77 scent of these in t program tested drug firee. ` Since-C aliform more people to t's.the d a bigger 6wft-and prisch sys- cisl b of g e; roponepts call it ji,the savings Isere Wvbuld be :the Substance Abuse and Crime achb' ger"the Legislative Anal- Preventirsn,pct cif 2bf )is a rztod- t's secs estates aut sa vinp est rcfdrm with a gOod•deal of- Mon over five years,eve. pkonils& It includes pminion$for ter appropria ' an extra independent assessment as it is•im. dlion em nai ki�far drug treat- plemepted,so if•it doesn't work it entPros rAms. - Vie. will becoune appare�tK it d es your serious attention and support. From:Oak W.Wagerman To:Deutsctxaan,Chuck Date:6J29100 Time:3:12:16 PM page fp{g tine County Re iister, Monday, June 22, 2000 :TORIAL Drug ar, di rimties tx Itpottat"of the Mcn we sent to prison on drug Substance Abuse and charges at 13 times the rete of Qime Prevention Act i to mcn.In C aliforWa,69 percent of 2000,the initiative a(all drug offenders sent to priean that will be on the state am Aftan-American. Uifim[4 ballot in.November,is hig�ted sends a mint higher percentage of by a report rcleased]asst 77 umday the Mutation to prison fba drug by Human Rights Watch,an in; ofl!enses(91 per 100,000 msidents) tarr�at�oW watchdog orpn#atton, than for vlWent crimes 159 w If demonstrates in such detail that 100(}001. , it can no longer be ignored that the Can anyone fad to be shocked a1 war on drugs is waged disptopor- such disparities'There may be tfonattay and cruelly against Afri- reasom besides blatant racdad.prej. cw ericans.iwwww br w.brgh'- udic a why this might be the case, portsl2wftw. as Human Rights Watch Executive Voters treed to hear from loth Director-T-eamth Roth told us. oar-party candidates howthey ug use and drug txarMcdons in would address this situation,which Drug neighborhoods are more owtr butes significantly to a grow likely to OCCU r on the streets, *dis=t of the judicial system which police can paUA than utside by minority Americans. suburban hot.Some police de. As Jamie F'ellner,associate partments use*proms to Iden- counsel of Human Rights Watch tify su, in ways btu notes,"Most drug rc to oMnders aora b= that a to pollee atten- white.Five tames as many whites tion.And ccd s€Mences true drugs as blacks. Rett biac�cs for crack cocaine compared to comprise the great m*rhy of powder cocalne tend to put more dmg offenders sent to prison." black people than white in prism . furies could be tweaked for longer periods. WW Blank people make up Wbaev�er the seasons,however, about 13 percent of the population, this is anst divisive and po- white p6p;e about 73 percent,so tettti�y+e� e pphet menon. there we slightly nwre than live Human Rights e is Watch rn- .ti ne9 as may white ale as menti the el butiwt of ntanda• l ie,which might mean a tory'minimum sentences for drug sligh'dy%her percentage of black offen^more use of alternatives people than white people use illicit to incarceMdO", more use of"drug drugs.Still, it the laws were ap- courts.*more treatment program l e4 y,one would expect t-, and the end of racial profiling. tae aQut five times as many tq.ite 'Biose modest steps should be just people as African-Americans in the bcgkming of a wholesale recon- prism for drug offenses. ,sideration of a disastrous apsprnach But that's not how it is, N. to drug Policy.'Me current palicpp wide,black people compric hasn't worked and has imposed rite putt of drag offendei costs disp;r%portionately on racial orate prison.Nationwide, minorities. }t M ,/ Y Aw }'-a # fR•'. YtA I} •1• tt ♦-} a} } .} . � It.. r}}f x`J •marl •.!•rf tl. f)r Mfr w ,} :w.ft }4. (? +•E*:f }} r«.r.T. } ..tt•w ..} .R f } .1 1}C {/•.w } .i .r. Ir tlw,l} I:. :'2 Ff Yr_ } '. 4•. 11� ♦"J T:1.• Mn X11\.:. � �� ••T }} i.: 1 +�: t ilsa a ...'+'ftf .�I}:...,. } t� -.!!. w•}-. w - }} - • ♦i t 1 r { } is r t Y } w �. Mbf A .} a-� t tlf -.•1. rs \t E a` +.: !1}Yf".r.4'b }} \111 1l a. } ✓f w41 'J . • .,y},. Is } • } t � a !I � }} 41 1 ■ 1. ♦} of w" fa •• � .1,. } w` Mfr � fr.�e rl • 1 •E a •} a +w }!. ••tA � } !•1a ..a a} .w !!. #A: }}} w rT1\wY.. Y.•..!! !.! t• }afl -t3• •w�R'..}},w • • . f .is ,• !.. w,#.�,e } w 4 fI.'.r#T., .Ia t f.! \< }- a}• a _ w11� FY a } f }• '..}. r! :I } _� • � •t _� w4w ♦ . :! rR '� } e a}• j ter• .f. a w.1, r R A ♦` e� A fw r / rift+F. .A t1 # .•? 1 ♦ ai t} } •}} /'.+}.`. A♦ .••:a ♦ ! !:+ Itf .n \•• f I Vt 11 N1 1` }} r•; f• !f O 1:.:, rE 1 r a • w t } • ...,�f / 4Aw T a !w �:.+:Y - tl •"J •►.^� � � l�faA/ .• • •. } 1f1 ! } 1i a 1 r E♦ } r f. .trl ;s Ali a i�� Fran:Dale W.Wagermari To:Deutsctvnan,Chuck [pate:6129!00 Time:3:12:16 PM paw 1 { C41 FO R N 1ANS UNiTEDAGAINST RUGA811SE Sprxr aW ky Lair Entoraeat PrWaaaiaaala.Healgware.Crime Vktims rad Taimea June 23, 2000 r. Chuck Deutschman resident xmty Alcohol and Drug Program Administrators Association of California 1291 Street,Suite 340 .cramento, CA 95814 ear Mr. Deutschman We're writing to warn you about a dangerous and misleading initiative that has qualified for tlifornia's November 2000 ballot®and to ask that you join us in opposing it. Called the"Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Acct of 2000" by its out-of-state backers, this itiative is a bad vote for public safety and a poor investment for taxpayers. In truth, this initiative threatens public safety, strips drug treatment programs of the :countability needed to ensure success, reduces judicial discretion, and essentially"decriminalizes"the ;e and possession of hard drugs like heroin, PCP, crack cocaine and methamphetamine. It also eakens the law against possession of date rape"drugs like GHB. At a time when drug use is increasing among California youth, this is the wrong message to be coding. If enacted, this poorly conceived initiative will delay legitimate drug treatment reform and Yderrnine the progress we've already made—costing taxpayers $120 million a year for pr+ogrAM that en't held accountable for their success. We urge you to join our campaign against this cynically misleading initiative by signing and faxing ick the enclosed endorsement sheet today. Our opponents have already mobilized, so it's essential )u act now. Thank you for your help and concern. We look forward to hearing from you. de alter Allen III, President Don Novey, Presi+dehntny,�/ A Narcotic Officers Association CA Correctional Peace Officers Association raig Steckler, President Tian Grimmond, President. A Police Chiefs Association CA Peace Officers.Association trry Brown, Executive Director Helen Harberts, Chief Probation Officer A District Attorneys Association County of Butte arta Lowe, CA Delegate rug Watch International 455 Capitol Mail, Suits SW a Sacramento, California 95814 a 10#1223780 1-800.05-3221 (fax)916.447-6926 DRUG COURT PRACTITIONER FAA " SHEET i • f 1 R i ! ! i ' ! ! i t ' wf ra f 1. !f•.. A 1} If - • r!..11).Jf1,+^#f r} t rf jf !1. 1 A..!rT d1 ! ii+• 1 w n; { 1 t• t•• t/ ! 1 • •.R 1 I` 1R ( R }.' }1 t 1 t !t f�� (/ 1 � f /1 t♦ .A 4�t r A i. R -! t. R"t" - A♦ 11 4# •A f A 1n1t .11• Y 1 ftlr a f. '.!.f Aff M,.w rS If f f 1•: e♦ fA r1f ♦ �RI. ,a R�#' ! IR #r, } � } / : f"J' - ff �f A♦ At • t ! .+•:tf et# t I t 4f^ 1R t !i ..1 til ! •• } • # AR f ! A !! R 4 • f k 1 i A - � (! 4 t� !! } IR A 1 t A • t! i 1 •'J ..RA !•vf I4- -# M.•#A =It:f fR. } fl rA' 1 t tf f R e •r �A } Sf A 1. xiff f R +e:f!t' •# t♦ }{ f•.} f.a.: !t ! !M.A•r:A( .. •:4 I1 f 4f r1.f IMM • F: !f ■ •,♦ / 1 t t I t 1 !Mkl'.•3, 11l ff 1. - r w t♦ f�J; ilia It .++il + 1R i• s "'f1 sR 1 t v f t c - '1 +F.A i/+4 R•-.. t t14! •! 1 r ••1 ItR •IIS. N`l . }fr ♦.r:•M•• 1 1! fR � f AI 1 !' � }A ' t - •'; .Irl }•. \ 11. • !1 .l ';1. •M t 1 1 `.1 � I rl _ 1 (t , .. , ._1 4 .1 }. }.. E {: IAA ; • a +aR 11 >, ,�.,,. ..,f - t •11f 11 i.• ♦faA .41.# 4:a ! f'• t I f � It t •• # • R-•* »f ! w.^;I,w Ir•I ilw �J-f fl - to ... f!•• ♦ }'; If }:. • IR ♦4 R♦ It - ^ r -}1 i;.+N +-i.♦ ft.•- -,! ..wtr t ..»r If Rr f: ..f.r•s• -1 r.t. r•e_+,eA A. U 1 4'ss ,1 ! t} ♦ -.}• •- f.. ♦.,. :,r. 4u+11 �•t/ �..+: A f .,frq•'(+w �. rn •. 1 . ..arf 4..f 11 w •r,li IN A .A 1 /}A '* + • :t w r:l 'Y-• }� 1• IR^,MA } atA, . :Ftr, T , t.r r�ul• -.. F+s t; a 4 •• • � } -.-A•rf#rr: r,af v. - Fr n} r•. ... /!✓a.• r} .A R -. _.t t.. tt—." 1.1 YI v, it} ffr 1'\:• • IR• /• �} : s•; '.te Ara r f^# � I• .+.! ! : !1• t1 f'�-. '.d 1!4#R! :FIA !} • ! }'}1. ! rwt 1 �} .l4'• AA .fl +:/. f'.•rT l 1 }t1{t.{ "t4#A't}' 1 IAf �/ at�,f }ft AI w 1• .if♦ 1 r Rt •� 1 +1^4/• • }•F r• f•1 ! R`J :IlIM rf } IR. J :.1 H1,#'R f S. +l1Yl� It \w\ ! 1 }•;lf If',+. :4lh l f f ' 1 a"IA' •lA' �} t f/1 t• f1. :Rt I4fIAT a# .I A' !•Sf II �,/ rt � t � f # 1 f ,Ar Iw-s +If..} R + •}f•+• I 'A:R1-t't R\ AIIt f • •! A - _ # w R I - { f Y ,{} f R f 1 - IS»ei f.'J _.f/w .#!••f f r 1 :I \� ,} l} ••,�fA 1•r»• 1 !++ f r a.f •!R:' 1 Mt/ 1 q ./! 1 t:R ••f It ! ! • a! • t f ! I.f T i !f ! ! !I From:tide W.Wagennan To:Deutschman,Chuck Date:6129100 Time:3:12.16 PM Page 3�*6 entives play an essential role, arc far uxmrc sie=Mfut is retention in treatment,as well as reduce drug use and crit in4 eining 03111cipauts in treatment for longer periods of time a;.trat3itianai tnxtmeaL �p� �c P'� r' ac is &c drug conal p,��N {Belcusm.1999). ftention nates for drug courts (which by dcfiMfi= imply *M=factors appy to m(tea tin moron in drag teraoarent) are: much greater thea ,the pcngrams froux riseUnsuccessm t ]1o8ra s. pS tutioa rams typically observed for atniadjustios xific ally, and treatment clients in general.... s t is era �l pleesis on assisting the offender � behavior. tmated that about 60%of those who eater drag courts Second, ftsZ jtzmj=eat] programs are still In treatment(primarily outpatient in ip drug-free)after dtrratioa.With mvltiple levels of care,'whlch Si''�the of1'radex- o year.... In contrast, jaj recent ntadozW evahmt[on of ample time to change hiAw behavior. Fitcally, successful atment outcomes found that half of those admitted to jtreatmentj programs use the kverage of the crimhW 1p4dent drug-free programs stayed less than three ,justice system to retain the client in treatment and improve +nths"(an,Jrhasrs added)(13e cuko,1999). outcomes"(empkrrsls adde){Taxtuan,19M. . Steven Bd=ko of Columbia University, the National Drug treatment courts include these three-critical factors and Ma on Addictiaa and Substance Abase (CASA), in a. have even been ldentifeed,along with other coercive treatment isioa of his 1998 seminal study of drug courts,vcviewr:d 48 programs. by the U.S. J7kpm uncut.of Health and Human to court evaluations. and eonchxded that "drug couM Saviors as one of f=successful drug and crime[trleat meat] =pared to other treat acct •programs, provide more prevention program, nprehensive supervision and monitoring. increase rates of :ferences: glia.M-D..Hser,Y.(1998).7Ae CffecdYen=.ofco&ccd Marlowe.D.B..Kirby.K.C.(1999).Effective Use ofsastctious aMtdrrtjbr&ug-a�offatdo-s Paper pricsadcd at the n drug courts:Lessons from behavioral research.Mariana! Sm of National Drug Controt Policy's Confirm=of Deng Cow-:Lwdtwe Review 11(1): I--31. solars and Policy Makers.Win,DC. Nimes,S.,Vrsh,L.&Messier.N(1998).The Districe of ospori,E.,Alpert,G.(1993).?he role of diffacatial Columbia Treatment Initiative(DCI).College park,b®: serieace with the cdmhwjustke system in chau8es.m Center for Substancic Abuse ( ). xeptions of severity of legal sanctions over rima.Crirrre and limquency,39,1$41944. Robbum v Celt;fam&4 370 U.S.660(1964. Idako,S.(1998).Rwm=h on drug cc arts:A critical Simpson,D.D..Jon.CW,&Brown,B.S.(1997).Treatment iaw.Nadioral'Drug Cana 1rrsattiete Re s*w,l(1):1-42. retention and Moor ap ouLownes m the Drug Abuse Ttaaottzent Outcome Study(JATOSX Psychology of eldWaw kako,S.(1999).Research on drug courts:A critical Behavior,11(4),294-307. icw,1999 update.Ragioml Drug Court lays iaae Review, Tararuma.F(1999).UmavcUng"what world"for off=dca in substance abuse treatment .National Drrdg Court tug Court Ptoxmms tom.(IM-Dgs.&w drstg courts: lasdtute Review.R(2):93-134. . e key conponeyas.Wasbingtoa,DC.Office ofJustice Wams,U.S.Department of Justice. - ResourceslContacts; well.A.(1998).Drug tour&acrd eke rote of • sadorrs.National Institute of Justice.Research in progress'_ Nadorrd Drug Carat hnsii�t+r tiirzar sexier, 888.909.6324 arA A.WW).Evahration offire D.C-srrperlororrat t� S P'rqgrunu.National IMdutte of And=Ri=ch 202.6 oa pmrM bbasd.R.L.,blazdeu.M.B.,Rachal,J V.Harwood.BJ., vwmgh.B.Et.&Giazburg,H.NL(1989). Drag abuse 2ftent:d narionalstud y ofeffikawness.Chapel X11.NC: iversity ofNords Carolina Press. c [ctvDi�CiC 1 AUGUST 20, 2040 IE, Ke .justr 1;ailid 140 to the Drug War The iconoclastic governor of New Mexico, Clary Johnson, is the highest-ranking official ever to call,for partial legalization. How did a republican trip over this issue? By Matthew Miller n a balmy night in Albuquerque,8o we really want our kids to be branded"criminals"for hav- homeowners shuffle into the cafete- ing experimented with drugs? If they're not driving or ria at Whittier Elementary School, stealing while high, where is the harm? Johnson looks where one wall is covered with a down at his cheat sheet; he's ari unpolished if ardent mural that suggests a stage. Stand- speaker. Last year, he points out, 450,000 people died ing before this"stage"is New Mex- from smoking cigarettes.Alcohol killed 150,000,and an- ico's governor,Cary Johnson,a lithe,boyish figure in a other 100,000 died from legal prescription drugs. How checked blazer and clashing patterned tic.If you saw the many people died last year from the use of marijuana? sandy-haired,47-year-old in a crowd,you wouldn't pick Few,if any.From cocaine and heroin?Five thousand. him out as a leader.But then he begins.There's no comic '"Yet we are arresting 1.5 million people a year in this introductory patter.He's right into his sermon. country on drug-related crime,"Johnson says, his voice "I made you all a pledge that I was going to put the is- rising. "Half of those arrests are for marijuana,and half sues that should be on the front burner on the front burn- those arrested are Hispanics.Tell me that half the users of er, regardless of the consequences," he says. "Half of marijuana in the United States of America are Hispanic!I what we spend on law enforcement, half of what we don't think so." We're locking up nonviolent people spend on the courts and half of what we spend on the senselessly, he tells the mostly white audience, his blue prisons is drug related.Our current policies on drugs are eyes and neck veins bulging."We ought to legalize mari- perhaps the biggest problem that this country has." juana.We need to stop`getting tough'with drugs." Everyone tells kids not to do drugs,Johnson says.Ile- Row upon row of quizzical faces tilt to one side,as if spite this chorus,nearly 80 million Americans have tried this were a physiological necessity when processing them,including more than half of this year's graduating strange data from a most unlikely source.It's hard to be- high school class.No one condones this,he adds,but do lieve this is a Republican governor.People say they want Photograph by flan Peebles 32 politicians who will give it to them straight.Well, laughed at his plan to give every New Mexico he decided it was a"handicap'•and stoppecti this is what straight must sound like.Yet people child a$3,500 school voucher,Johnson spurned also tried cocaine twice. " 16oat",Johnson re look dubious."If everyone were like GaryJohn- their offer of a pilot program,vetoed the entire members feeling.-I understand why people do son and a triathlete,it would be fine,"one man budget and barnstormed the state to drum up it. This is UN-be-LIEST-able." And therefore tells me.They'd have the fortitude to steer clear support. He lost, but he is backpushing the too dangerous to continue,he reckoned. Of legally available dope."But they're not." voucher plan again this year. Johnson told skeptical college buddies that he All of which means that Johnson,the highest- would run for president one day, having been THAT'S PUTTING IT MILDLY:JOHNSON R.EGU- ranking official ever to call for partial drug legal- hooked from grade school on the idea that"poli- larly finishes near the top of his age group in ization,may have just the temperament to force tics was a high calling."But financial independ- Ironman competitions, which combine a 2.4 an overdue debate.Can a fitness addict who's an ence came first. Having put himself through mile swim,a 112-mile bike ride and a marathon. improbable mix of Howard Roarke,Tony Rob- school with a string of construction jobs,John- He once ran 100 miles in 30 consecutive hours in bins and Stephen Cove break America's $40- son began his own handyman and remodeling the Colorado Rockies. And these are just his billion-a-year drug-war habit?As kids,Johnson business.His break came a decade later,when Big physical feats.Johnson is manic about being on and a pal squeezed clamps onto their tongues to J Enterprises,by then doing commercial work, time.He sets 10 or so goals each year and writes see who could stand the pain the longest."He'll got a hefty chunk of a huge Intel plant expansion. them on the back of a business card; this year, kill himself," the old tongue rival says,"before The deal swiftly took Johnson's revenues the list includes teaming yoga (he's in a class he lets you beat him." from$1.5 million to$38 million,sparking a clas- each Wednesday after work), reading a book a sic small-business crisis. Endless days spent month and having one"adventure"each week- T IS 5 A.M. IN SANTA FE THE MORNING chasing receivables to meet his firm's swelling Among the"seven principles of good govern- after his elementary school talk,and Gary payroll drove him to the brink."I felt like i un- ment" that pepper Johnson's speeches are "al- Johnson is killing me.I've come along for derstood suicide,"he recalls.To cope,he took a Quays be honest"; "always do what's right and his notorious morning workout. We're night course in time management in 1987. It fair";"determine your goal"and"develop a plan running 11 miles up a mountain in the made him reassess everything."I realized,look- to reach that goal." Friends who watched him dark.I'm gasping for air after 10 minutes.By the ing back over my life,"he says,"that when I was build a construction business before sweeping 25-minute mark,he has circled back four times to- fit everything seemed to work."He gave up liq- into the governor's office on the antigovern- urge me on. It's like having your own personal uor, ramped up his fitness program (to 54 ment tide of 1994 say he is the most disciplined gubernatorial trainer.I finally persuade him to go points)and began writing down goals. person they've ever known.And truthful to the on alone;he'll catch me on the way down.Stones By 1993, at age 40, the now-prosperous point of annoyance:there are no"gimme"putts crunch under the governor's feet as he scampers Johnson told friends he was ready to run for during a round of golf with Johnson, up the trail and disappears. the United States Senate. But the incumbents So how did a hokey role model like Johnson Johnson has a point system for his workouts looked entrenched,so he decided he would be- come to be viewed by the drug policy establish- —one point each for a running mile,a quarter- come governor. Republican elders were ment as a threat to the nation's youth?By acting mile swim,three miles of biking or 10 minutes amused. "I thought this was the most naive, like the uncompromising heroes in the Ayn of weight lifting.Johnson racks up 77 points a unacquainted-with-government person that I'd Rand novels he admires. Last summer, a few week. (It's one of his goals.) He was up to 104 ever seen,"recalls John Dendhal,now the state months into his second and (constitutionally points before becoming governor. His resting party chairman.They told him a likable young mandated)final term,Johnson told state G.0.11 pulse rate is in the 40's,When I ask two aides if businessman could have a big future if he start- leaders that he was determined to make the most Johnson would know what portion of his body ed with the State Legislature.Johnson thanked of his bully pulpit while he had it. Days later, weight was fat,they cut me off in chorus:"He'll them for their advice,plunked down half a mil- without having thought it all through (he says know"(Eight percent.) lion dollars (serious money in New Mexico now),Johnson told reporters that he would sup- Three years ago,Johnson started a bet with politics} to win the G.O,P, primary and rode port Legalizing marijuana and heroin. friends to swear off sugary foods.They each put Newt Gingrich's coattails into the Statehouse. Ka-boom!The White House drug czar,Gen. $100 a month in a pool,with all the money going Barry McCaffrey, flew in to condemn him. Ed to the last to resist temptation. It's down to AT THE I HOUR 10 MINUTE MARK, I HEAR Bradley came down to do a segment for"60 Min- Johnson and a state representative who once Johnson's footsteps nearing and join him for the utes."Johnson became the toast of the libertari- worked for him.The price for drinking a Coke is last stretch downhill.The sun is up and the val- an Cato Institute and Rolling Stone magazine,on now$7,200.The state rep has lost 50 pounds. ley is resplendent; aching thighs aside, Team his way to a starring role at the recently convened The governor has other eating rules,You can Johnson offers an inspiring way to start the day. "shadow conventions." Meanwhile, his chief eat only one sandwich at a sitting,or two slices I ask Johnson about his political philosophy.He law-enforcement official quit in protest,a local of pizza,tops."How many times have you per- says he is nota true libertarian,because he thinks sheriff called him an"idiot"and his approval rat- sonally eaten a lot more pizza than two pieces," government often has a role. But'he grill never ing sank from 54 percent to 35 percent. he asks,"when all you really needed was two?" qualify as a"compassionate contervative."After "Most of the people surrounding him wish he Johnson hasn't always been this driven. His six years of his stewardship, New Mexico re- would stop," says Darren White, the top cop father was a public school teacher; his mother mains among the nation's poorest states, with. who quit Johnson's cabinet."But this is vintage worked at the Bureau of Indian Affairs.A mid- one of the highest levels of uninsured citizens. Gary Johnson." Meaning pigheaded or princi- dling student,Johnson never thought about go- Shouldn't government do more on health cover- pled,depending on whom you ask.Johnson has sing anywhere but the University of New Mexi- age?Johnson dismisses the problem,saying that vetoed a record-shattering 578 bills during his co.That's where the pot he started smoking in many folks don't want insurance and that with tenure,producing the state's worst gridlock— high school became something of a lifestyle. emergency rooms,nobody really goes without. and lowest spending increases --- in decades. The governor talks about those days with re- What about help for the working poor in an When Democrats,who control the Legislature, markable candor. He didn't ju$t "experiment" age when unskilled folks are losing ground?"I with marijuana, the invariable confession of don't buy into that,"Johnson snaps.`Anybody Matthew Miller,a syndicated columnist,is a sen- boomer politicians.Johnson told me he was high that wants to be an entrepreneur in this coun- ior fellow at the Annenberg Public Policy Center two to three times a week between his senior try can make an absolute fortune."Even some- at the University of Pennsylvania. year of high school and a year after college,when . body who cleans houses,he says, 34 i' If you're spending $40 billion and the drugs keep coming in, ohnson figures, why not `ust e alize the stuff and wort on PpY g eo le so the don't et hooked? Maybe so, but back at Whittier Elementary School,at least,a lot of parents see it differently. Johnson has been taking questions for almost an hour now,making arguments so original and sin- cere ohnson making his case to the Legislature,in this case a student one sponsored the Y.M.CA. What that you can't help thinking a has a point. .� 8 �� '�'° �` What other politician says we rated to tell lads the truth about how good pot really is(because How's that?I ask,huffing behind him. there's something wrong with this picture;but a if we don't,and they find out we were scaremon- "If I started a business tomorrow just cleaning crusade by a sitting Republican governor marks gering,they'll assume we were lying about LSD houses by myself," he says, "I think I could a new high point for dissent.For years,conser- and heroin, too)? Yes, Johnson admits, there make$100,000 a year.You clean four houses at vative intellectuals like Milton Friedman and would be problems under the legal marijuana re- $100 a day. William F. Buckley Jr. have made a libertarian gime he envisions,but they'd be half as bad as "I know what these people do when they case for legalization. But both political parties the disaster of today's prohibition. Johnson's come in and clean. In three hours I could do found prison-building,"tough"sentencing laws candor is contagious:several citizens openly ad- what they do. I just don't buy into the notion and calls to"Just Say No"politically irresistible. mit their own pot use. that anybody can't still make it today if they are Then,in 1988,Kurt Schmoke,the black mayor of 'Then something remarkable happens. A willing to work hard." Baltimore and a rising Democratic star,stunned Vietnam veteran,an elderly man in a red base- Johnson's empathy gap highlights a paradox the U.S. Conference of Mayors by saying the ball jacket and a 40-ish professional type rise in his approach to drugs.His fierce belief in per- drug war was doing more harm than good.All one after another to say they don't usually sonal responsibility is what convinced him that options, decriminalization included, he said, agree with Johnson but admire his courage in the drug war is a waste of money; if you're should be considered. Schmoke's stand landed raising this issue. There's assent and applause spending$40 billion and the drugs keep coming him on the front page of newspapers around the from the crowd.A woman corners Johnson as in,he figured,why not just legalize the stuff and country. When he was re-elected twice after- he is leaving."I'm afraid you're gonna get as- work on people so they don't get hooked? Yet ward, it proved that a black, big-city mayor,at sassinated,"she blurts out. he has vetoed millions for drug treatment partly least,could buck the bromides and survive. Johnson says that a number of governors because he seems to feel people should be able to Schmoke says that he made a mistake in not have told him privately they respect what he's straighten themselves out by an act of willpower, being ready with a clear set of solutions at the doing;they also say their careers would be over just as he did.As a result,he has alienated natural time he defined the problem; that allowed his if they tried it.But the issue is gaining steam.A allies in the public health community in a state foes to put him on the defensive.Johnson feels California ballot initiative this November that boasts the county with the highest death he made a similar error by glibly floating the no- would divert nonviolent first-time drug of- rate from heroin overdoses in the country. tion of providing heroin legally by prescription, fenders to treatment; New York's chief judge following the Swiss model."People were totally recently.introduced a similar system admin- ALTHOUGH THE DRUG DEBATE OFTEN RE- turned off to that,"he says."This was no longer istratively. Johnson, meanwhile, has his first- duces to a series of'-confusing statistical duels about common sense.It was insane." ever bipartisan task force coming back in De- over whether,say,1merican interdiction,efforts The intervening year or so has seen the tam- cember with a slate of reforms in drug policy; or Holland's lenient pot laws are working,some ing of Gary Johnson,with the governor reach- which he says could even include pardons for facts are not in dispute.In 1980,government at ing out for advice and reinforcements.He now nonviolent offenders. all levels spent less than$5 billion on drug con- seeks legalization for marijuana only and pro- Johnson is determined to get something done. trol and incarcerated about 50,000 Americans motes "harm reduction" strategies for other "I would have figured the first person over the for nonviolent drug offenses; today, it spends drugs, a policy associated with reformers like hill on this issue is going'to get shot,"he says. some $40 billion and jails more than 450,000 Ethan Nadelmann of the George Soros-backed But the governor is optimistic.He has been at it (more than Europe, with a larger population, Lindesmith Center.These analysts view drugs only a year,and he has two and a half more to go jails for everything).Blacks make up 17 percent as a public health problem,not a criminal one, before he leaves office.After that,as everyone in of cocaine users but also 88 percent of those and back broad programs for needle exchange the state seems to know,Johnson's only firm convicted on crack cocaine charges.Casual drug and methadone maintenance. They also criti- plan is to climb Mount Everest.Discussing this, use is down substantially from two decades ago, cite"mandatory minimum"sentences that can Raymond Sanchez,the speaker of New Mexico's while the population of hard-core addicts (re- leave nonviolent drug offenders in jail longer House of Representatives,hunts down hi,copy sponsible for most drug-related crime) has held than rapists or burglars. General McCaffrey, of "Into Thin Air;"Jon Krakauer's bes; seller steady at around five million. Drugs remain who has himself fought to fix unfair sentencing about the 1996 Everest disaster, and cit,.s this widely available, at low prices, to those who laws, nonetheless views much of the harm-re- passage to sum up what you need to know about want them.Half of the addicts who need treat- duction agenda as a ploy to pave the way to- Gary Johnson:"Any person who would seriously ment can't get it,and dirty needles are a major ward full legalization.Johnson's efforts,he tells consider"climbing Everest,Krakauer writes,"is factor in the spread of H.I.V me sharply, are "irresponsible," .misguided" almost by definition beyond the sway of rea- Gary Johnson isn't the first official to say and"anathema to America's parents." soned argument."a PHOTOGRAPH BY SARAH MARTONVASSOCIATED PRESS THE NEW YORK TIMES MACAZm I I AUCUST 20.1000 36 .:�%UNISHMENT OR TREATMENT? httpJ/www.uniontribune.com/news/uniontrib/Sun/neWs/news—tn6drug.htm PUNISHMENT VR T ATMEN '? Initiative would shift focus, pouring more funds into prevention By Bill Ainsworth STAFF WRITER August 6,2000 SACRAMENTO --Three drug-possession convictions earned Elon Burns his first term in state prison. A fourth drug offense sent him to Donovan Prison on a parole violation. Drugs were easy to find in prison. Rehabilitation wasn't. His heroin use even escalated at Donovan. "It taught me how to use needles. It made me into a worse addict," said Burns,who lives in Spring Valley. Burns, 29, is one of thousands of addicts who cycle in and out of jail and prison for drug-possession offenses in California--a state that throws more drug offenders in prison per capita than any in the nation. Most of them get no rehabilitation. Inside and outside prison, California has a shortage of drug-treatment programs for addicted criminals,especially residential programs. An initiative on the November ballot, Proposition 36,would increase money for drug treatment and probation by $120 million per year for five years. It also would reroute first-and second-time drug offenders from jail or prison into treatment. Law-enforcement officials and many judges oppose the measure, saying it would undermine drug laws. They argue the increased spending on treatment might be wasted because the initiative won't allow judges to threaten addicts with jail time. "Treatment without accountability doesn't work,that's why we started drug courts," said Santa Clara County Judge Stephen Manley,president of the California Association of Drug Court Professionals,which opposes the measure. I aes 8/7/00 2:28 Pr P13NISHMENT 012.TREATMENT? http://www.uniontribune.com/news/uniontrib/Sun/news/news—ln6drug.htp ti But even opponents of the measure,which was modeled on an initiative passed in Arizona four years ago,support spending more money in California on treatment of criminal addicts. "It's terrible," said San Diego County Superior Court Judge Timothy Tower,who has presided over drug courts. "There's not close to enough treatment spaces." The state's treatment shortage frustrates drug court judges who want to expandtheir successful programs. It also costs taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in prison expenses and dooms many addicts like Burns to a revolving door between prison and parole. Burns'mother,Gretchen Burns Bergman, said she believes her son would have had a better chance at conquering his addiction if he had received treatment during his first brush with the law 10 years ago. Instead,he got three months of work furlough. "I kept saying: If only they would take the power they have and use that to mandate treatment," said Bergman, who has formed a group called Parents for Addiction Treatment and Healing. "When people have this disease,they don't know that they need treatment." Worth the expense Numerous studies have concluded treatment is worth the extra initial expense because it reduces recidivism,thus cutting costs in the long run. One key study, commissioned by former Republican Gov. Pete'Wilson and conducted by the National Opinion Research Center, concluded that the state saves $7 for every $1 invested in treatment, mainly because of crime reduction. "If you don't address drug and alcohol abuse,they're just going to come back," said Al Medina, administrator of alcohol and drug programs for San Diego County. California treatment advocates contend state lawmakers don't need to wait to see whether the.drug-diversion initiative passes. They can allocate the money now, the advocates say. In the last two years,lawmakers have increased the budget for drug courts and drug treatment in prisons. But state Sen. John Vasconcellos,D-San Jose,who has been working to expand rehabilitation programs for years, said lawmakers don't have the courage to go further. "It's stupid," he said. "They want to be tough on crime. But they fear that supporting treatment is going to make them seem soft." Currently, 19,000 of the state's 160,000 prisoners are locked up for drug crimes,according to the state Department of Corrections. Many drug users return again and again to jail and prison. Drugs are considered to be the leading cause of the state's high recidivism rate 2 of 5 8/7/00 2:28 P PUNISHMENT OR TREATMENT.) http://www.uniontribune.com/news/uniontrib/sun/news/news_ln6drug.htm among prisoners,which reached 67 percent in 1999,according to state documents. State budget increases in rehabilitation now provide for 8,000 treatment slots in prison. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office estimated in a report three years ago that treating an additional 10,000 felons for substance abuse would reduce recidivism enough to save the state$80 million a year and $210 million in one-time costs by making it unnecessary to build a new prison. An estimated 81 percent,or about 130,000, of inmates in California's state prisons have a drug or alcohol addiction,according to a study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. In some ways,that makes the California prison system the nation's largest detoxification center. 'Criminals first' Jeff Thompson, lobbyist for the prison guards union, supports more treatment for criminals. But he cautions that a large increase in money may not dramatically reduce crime or incarceration expenses. "Some prisoners are criminals first,who just happen to be addicts," he said. Those inmates have no interest in ending their addictions,he said. Some prisoners complain they never got a chance. Stephen Elias of El Centro said during several stints in prison for robbery and stolen property convictions he never received treatment for his heroin addiction. "The one thing I find ironic," Elias wrote in a letter from prison last year to a Unibn-Tribune reporter, "is that every time I'd go to prison it was because of my drug addiction, but not once did I ever receive any treatment for the root problems of my criminality." Elias, who is serving 25 years to life for a third strike of stealing a printer, said he couldn't find treatment while not in prison, either. Outside prison,there is a 5,000-person waiting list for publicly funded residential treatment programs throughout the state, said Susan Nisenbaum,deputy director of the state's Department of Alcohol and Drug Rehabilitation. She said many on the waiting list are addicts with criminal convictions. The department projects it needs $63 million more in state funding to eliminate the list. But department officials contend the list significantly underestimates the need for publicly funded treatment, which it says would cost an additional $330 million a year to provide. Nisenbaum cautions that proposed treatment centers frequently face 3 of 5 8/7/00 2.28 PA PUNISHMENT OR TREATMENT? http://www.uniontribune.com/news/uniontrib/sunJnews/news—ln6drug.htm local opposition among neighborhood groups. "Even a check for$63 million wouldn't entirely solve the problem," she said. Drug court limits Urban counties such as San Diego and Santa Clara have provided local money for increased treatment.But they also suffer shortages, county officials say. This hinders the effectiveness of drug courts,which are an approach to helping criminals kick their habits before they're sent to state prison. In these programs,judges, using a mixture of toughness and compassion, order counseling, treatment and unusual assignments, such as writing papers. They also threaten jail time. At first,many prosecutors were reluctant to embrace drug courts, deriding them as "hug-a-thug" programs because they abandon the traditional adversarial court system in favor of a team approach. But now, said Lori Koster,the deputy district attorney who coordinates the drug courts in San Diego County,prosecutors as well as defense attorneys sing their praises. In San Diego County, 450 people have graduated from adult drug courts since their inception two years ago. Only 15 percent were arrested again within six months. "We've got nearly 500 people who didn't function, who are now functioning. They're going to work, taking care of their children and earning a salary," she said. Yet the shortage of treatment programs forces the San Diego drug courts to limit enrollment and sometimes close their doors. "We just turn people away when we're closed," she said. "We don't even screen them for addiction." Officials report similar successes and problems with drug courts throughout California. Such courts operate in 40 of the state's 58 counties. "Drug courts are working well, but we need more resources," said Santa Clara's Judge Manley. "There is just not funding for testing and inadequate funding for treatment." A history of addiction Elon Burns' convictions came before drug courts began. At his mother's home in Spring'Valley, Burns recounted his history of addiction. During the interview he was fidgety. He could barely sit still on the couch in the living room, and frequently went outside to smoke. Later,he explained the reason: He knew he had tested positive for heroin. His visit that afternoon to a parole agent could land him back in 4 of 5 8/7/o0 2:28 PT PUNISHMENT OR TREATMENT? t httpJ/www.uniontribune.com/news/uniontrib/Sun/news/news_ln6drug.htmr state prison for up to a year. Burns,who started drinking and smoking marijuana when he was 10, frequently got into trouble with drugs and alcohol. But his problem escalated about 10 years ago when he tried what would become his nightmare: heroin. When asked about the drug,Burns suddenly focused. "It's got such a hold--different from any other drug. It grabs you and gets in your soul," he said. "It's the purest form of evil on earth because it just seduces you with how good it feels." Burns said he continued using heroin during his first two prison terms, one at Jamestown in the Sierra foothills, and the other at Donovan. "There's all kinds of dope at Donovan," he said. Prisons do their best to keep drugs out, but they still are smuggled in, mostly through the mail and family visits, said Stephen Green, spokesman for the state prison system. Burns, during his third stint in prison,this one for another parole violation, finally entered the Amity rehabilitation program at Donovan. The pioneering program has a record of turning around addicts, but Burns' 10-year heroin addiction couldn't be conquered during his three-month stay. He and his mother said they believe the program amounted to too little, too late. Still, he said he believes prison is the wrong place for an addict. "I knew I had a problem,but I didn't know what to do about it," he said. "I was being warehoused." Copyright 2000 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. 5 of 5 8/7/00 2:28 Pr T :H 1 0 .R A N G E C . .0. U N T. Y EDITORIAL FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 2000 Treat mnt .no' t . ison! . 1. ln terms.of:real drug-policy been trying the same approach to reform,the Drug Treatment drugs.for.the..last.30 years and it .niversion Program;initiative isn't working..The prisons.are that will be on November's crammed'with people..gettingap .ballot is quite niodest. In - education in how.to try.to get away terms of what is politically feasi- wifihit-neat time,`drugs are readily ble,it-represents a.huge step.in the .•.mailable at too many,schools or.:. right direction. nearby, crimi hal gangs have,more The initiative would set tip a,sys� money and guns than the cops,and f6m of probation and treatment for nobody.feels-a,bit'.safer. It's time n6n-violent drug-possession offend- . to tr3a,different approadiv ers and:certain..parolees with,no Let's be realistic. Drug treat- serious or violent prior offenses. ' merit.is.not a magic'bull.et.and it lNeople in these programs would be doesn't work for-everyane. Putting subject to certain rules,and if they more-money into drug treatment violate.probation or parole,they creates-the.risk of reinforcing the would.again be subject to the cur- Therapeutic State:and.the idea that rent.drug laws. government should have a.pro- The idea is that if a-person has a gram for every personal problem drug.problerh,you start with treat- rather than encouragifng personal rhent. If that doesn't work or if he responsibility. commits other crimes,then jail But putting people in prison be- comes-into play. cause they have.p biems controll�- The initiative is similar to Propo- ing their-use of drugs not only . ,sition 200,passed in Arizona in hasn't worked,*it has made.every 1996 and reaffirmed in 1998. The aspect.of this society's drug prob- Arizona Supreme Court reported lems worse.It increases real crime that in its first-year of operation and off cial corruption at every that system saved taxpayers$2.5 level. It's time for a different ap- riffllion and 77 percent of those in proach. -fhe program tested drug-free. The Drug Treatment Diversion Since California,has more.people Program initiative(that's.the offi dhd a bigger court-and prison sys- cial ballot title;proponents call it tem,the savings here would be ' the Substance Abuse and Crime much bigger.the Legislative Anal- Prevention Act-of 2000) is a mod- V§t's Office estimates cost savings est reform with a good-deal of of$1.5 billion over five years eve:. promise. It includes provisions for after appropriating an extra 120 independent assessment as it is im- million earmarked for drug treat- plemented,so if it doesn't work it meet programs. will become apparent. It deserves ;.. Here's the bottom line.We've' your serious attention and support. ,. Yes on Prop. 36 cis FOR RELEASE: CONTACT: August 11,2000 Roberta Craen at(310)3,04-2952 Opponents Lose `Date Rape' Argument in Court SACRAMENTO, August II — A central element of the scare-tactic campaign against Prop. 36 was found to be "false and misleading" today in court proceedings on ballot pamphlet materials. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd G. Connelly,Jr.,held that only drug offenses committed "far personal use" can result in a defendant being eligible for treatment instead of jail. Therefore, possession of a drug to use on someone else in a"date rape" scenario would not fall under the initiative's provisions. As a result, Judge Connelly ordered Prop. 36 opponents to delete a statement in their ballot arguments saying"sex offenders" with so-called"date rape" drugs could avoid jail if the initiative passes, "even though their drugs were Intended for victims, not themselves." Dave Fratello, communications director for Prop. 3+6, said, "The only honest thing for our opponents to do after today would be to stop raising the specter of `date rapists' getting a free pass with Prop. 36. But of course, this is a political campaign, and their approach relies heavily on scare tactics." "Regardless of whether this ruling changes our opponents' rhetoric," Fmtello continued, "it should give comfort to voters who might have heard about the `date rape' issue. The judge made two rulings today that make it clear, once and for all, that people who possess drugs to use on others will not qualify for probation and court-supervised drug treatment under Prop. 36. That was the intent of the initiative from the start, and this result is something even our opponents will embrace, if the initiative becomes .law. They will be able to prosecute `date rapists' without interference from this measure." Opponents had disputed the linkage of the phrase "for personal use" to the crimes of "possession"and "use" of drugs, an essential point for their`date rape" argument to have any meaning.Attorney General Bill Lockyer sided with proponents of Prop. 36 by saying that only "personal use" drug offenses qualify under the measure, setting the.stage for Judge Connelly's rulings on this issue. Fratello concluded, "Our opponents can scream `date rape drugs' all they like, but the basis of their argument against Prop. 36 has been destroyed. This charge will have the hollow ring of falsehood for the duration of this campaign." 1350 Sixth Street#202•.Santa Monica,CA 90401 •(314)344.2952*fax: (310) 451.7494 1121 L Street#9os *Sacramento,CA 95814•(916)449.6190•fax:(916)449.6199 www.dmgreform.org a qH 'R ?14-kr/ W )F) WT r W,"tr A VIS M, ::T C}rax� e county Register, Monday, June. 12, 2000 EDITORIAL Drug war disparities The importance of the' men are sent to prison on dxu Substance Abuse andchanes at 13 times the rate of Crime Prevention Act white mcn.Tn California, 69 percent of 2000, the initiative of all drug offenders sent to prisron that will be on the state are African-American. California ballot in November,is highlighted sends a much higher percentage of lir a report released last Thursday the papulation to prison f&drug by Human }lights Watch, an in- offenses (91 per 100,000 residents) ' tprnaoonal watchdog organization. than for violent crimes(S9 per it demonstrates in such detail that 100,000). It can no longer be ignored that the Can anyone fail to be shocked at war on drugs is waged dispropor- such disparities?There may be tictnately and cruelly against Afro- reasons besides blatant racial prej- can-A nericans. (www.hrw.orglre- udice why this might he the case, ' . ptrrt&2000Aim/). as Human Rights Watch Executive Voters need to hear from both Director Kenneth Rath told us. r party candidates how they Drug use and drug transactions I vrouid address-this situation,which black neighborhoods are more c wtributes significantly to a grow- likely to oc=on the streets, jag distrust of the judiciiO system which police can patrol, than inside by minority Americans. suburban homes.Some police de- ,As;amie Feltner, associate partments use"profiles"to idenn- c ounsel of Human Rights Watch dfy suspects in ways that bring motes,"Most drug offenders arc more black peo,ple to police atten- white.Five times as many whites tion. And the enhanced sentences use drugs as blacks. But blacks for"crack"cocaine compared to Comprise the great majority of powder cocaine tend to put more dru offenders sent to prison" black people than white in prison figures could be tweaked for longer pegs. alightly.Black people make up Whatever the reasons, however, sibout 13 percent of the population, this is an unjust, divisive and po- white people about 73,percent, so' tentially explosive phenomenon. there are slightly more than rive Human nights Match reeom- t times as many white,people as mends the elimination of manda- black pet>ple,which might mean a tory minimum sentences for drug alightly higher percentage of black offense.%more use of alternatives People than white people use illicit to incarceration, more use of"drug drugs. Still, if the laws were ap- courts," more treatment programs plied equally,one would expect to and the end of racial profiling. we about five times as many ,YI�ite Those modest steps should be,just people as African-Arnericans in -the beginning of a wholesale recon- prison for drug offenses. sideration of a disastrous approach But that's not how it is. N. to drag policy. The current Policy wide,black people Compri= hasn't worked and has unposed the percent of drug offender f costs disproportionately on racial mate prison.. Nationwide, minorities. 0 � a m : ro w owo cn $� •C w 4 ' a:,� � o a .tea •. " *'* �; ,°,",r.. .-,fb w3 ° , .ro' s"{• OQ �'g �,` `" °' t•�. '= fir , cr 97Lro 'n 0 a. � oIn9 Cr y.ro y cu co 0 0 P4 0'0 co 0 oa C �.o. tib �.� �• . . ' 0 0 .p CD qQ•Cy fp`C3 9,tD p•, , '+ fj go o y, �s p, y CL«%.."m Oyu 7Q > C j Yom* O :r m CS °rte : roa. 0 QQ'*°o " t3'C:k, opt o .rt T gy75. ro oa 0.'b ° °, z �?. 0, . °03:. cs oro m W d ro v+ `.� ,� � • QC2 0 Y. .'R uz .ro a_ '. ` ro XA C p stGst�� too ^* 0 a 1 y on ,A r Y VDD 1"t SWon Treatment �k k f s Proposition 36 Provides $120 Million Annually For Drug Treatment 51 and Helps Keep Working Families Together. r r Proposition 36 will: .f • Require treatment instead of Jail or State Prison for 1 st and 2nd time u non-violent substance abuse Violations r. • Help those convicted of non-violent substance abuse violations continue working and to reunite with their families - while they undergo mandated, court supervised treatment for a drug problem • Give no one a free ride. Those who violate terms of treatment can be imprisoned for up to three years tPy • Create a second chance for working men and women who have made mistakes At long last, working people will get the same second chance that movie stars, professional athletes and politicians now receive. Proposition 36 is supported by:California Society of Addiction Medicine,California Psychiatric Association,California Nurses Association, California Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors,Califomia Association of Alcohol/Drug Educators,California Women's Commission on Addiction,Cambodian Association of America.,Mental Health Association in California,Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEO,National Association of Social Workers a California,Occupational Therapy Association of California, California Church Impact,San Francisco Medical Society,United American Indian Involvement,Inc.®(partial list) .indorsed by the CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION, AFL=CIO r ar 1 � ,f 5 x ry` i u �# on „ Vol r sit „on t' T1reatment 'r "California ranks#1 in the incarcera`on of drug offenders.Nearly half of all drug offenders imprisoned °u in California last year,were imprisoned for simple possession of drugs. We're going to turn this state around because we're going to create a policy with this initiative that will stop locking up people who need help for these offenses.We're going to give them an opportunity to be rehabilitated." r.' ---Congresswoman Maxine Waters SE "{ "The American Medical Association calls substance abuse America's#1 Public Health Problem. Yet,we here in California continue to ignore our physicians and other health professionals when they tell us r, that drug addiction is a treatable disease. With Proposition 36 we can change that public policy. Vote Yes on 36! " -- Senator Richard Polanco,Majority Leader,California State Senate s "When a family is torn apart due to the incarceration of a parent for a non-violent substance abuse violation,recent studies say the children become three times more likely to end up in prison. We can stop that senseless damage to working families by passing Proposition 36 and ensuring each drug abuser gets a chance at treatment." —Senate President Pro-tempore,John Burton "California jails and prisons are overcrowded. Our state has the highest rate of prison admissions for drug offenses in the United States. Something is terribly wrong.Proposition 36 will help us by requiring court supervised treatment instead of jail or prison for first and second time substance abuse violations. That means state resources can be spent on prevention and treatment--and be available for urgent 1 needs like education,health care and transportation." --Art Pulaski,Executive Secretary/Treasurer,California Labor Federation,AFL-CIO "California Nurses strongly support Proposition 36. Over 20 years of scientific research has clearly demonstrated that drug addiction is a disease that can be treated. Like other chronic diseases such as diabetes,treatment does not always work the first time it is tried. It often takes several courses of treatment before the person can be helped to change their life. California Nurses are certain that Proposition 36"s requirement for treatment for individuals and for a long-term evaluation of treatment programs will work for California Families–just like a similar program has worked forArixona since 1996." —Kay McVay,R.N.,President,California Nurses Association Endorsed by the CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION, AFL-CIC 09/14100 THU 11:45 FAA 9164410178 Wagerman Associates x}002 sacbee Y01M.-Peter SaM.Drug...for message within P't+Vwkk)n 36 wyMwyg;j/&rn tp:/twww.ssctxc.cdWnew%ttwlstpnndfy cgi Peter chrag: Drug-lav refo is the message within Proposition : 36 (PuNtshed Sept 13, 2000) For the past four years,Bill Zimmerman has been busy pOunding holes into the couttluy's failing drug policies. It was Zimmerman,a Santa Monica-tassel liberal activist,who ran the successfA campaign for California's Proposition 215 andd similar initiatives W six other states legalizing the medical use of nI anjuw&This fall,he's running medical marijuana measures in two more states and initiatives reforming asset-fcsrf+siture laws in three others. But the big one on the menu is California's Proparsition 36,which would require that in most cases, anyone convicted of a"nonviolent drug possession offense"be sentenced to probation and treatment rather than,fail or prison. Zimmerman had been hoping,so far with little success,that the medical marijuana initiatives would prompt a review in Contras of drug policies that arc based largely on billion-dollar attempts at suppression of crop ancl traffickers abroad,interdiction at the border and criminal sanctions for users at home,But if Proposition 36 passes,he's confident the message will be The opponents of Proposition 36,headed by the state's prison guards union(whish promised to spend "serious money"to beat it),say the measure would,in effect, hard.drugs.They also claim that Proposition 36 would prohibit tc*fmg of those in treatment,which,is teen cruciall in enforcing Compliance,and that it would allow bate-rapists to escape ptmislmt"t The latter charges are mostly false.Proposition 36'aAgopriates S I20 million for treatment,none of which may be used for testing.but there is nothing in the measure to stop the Legislature from appi rpriating additional money for that purpose.And since the measure sloes not cow anyone possea'iing clr+ugs intended for use on others,and snot,in any�,as Zinm3uman paints out,the primo date-rape drug is alcohol,which is legal;the charge is absurd. But even Zimmerman aeknowl that itis big backers—billionaire financier Geoirge Sams,Mahn Sperling, tient of the for= t University of l'hoenin and Cleveland insurance mtili Peter Lewis- on' like testg and would have lu'biecl it a if�'iFmmermaa's focus hadn't shown"that testis is popular," says this `ga is not about ` on.$zit in the end,desxi tion u probablj the dirt:ctori he and his backers would like to go. They stress the faro tizeat tilt:United States has 2 rriiltiaa pea is is p�--far more than any other nation on Earth--in large part,they pttitrt out,became a►f its punitive,drug laws. 1 oft 9/1410011.45 AM 09/14/00 MI 11:45 FAX 9164416178 Waaeraan Associates 2003 sacbee Voices:Peter Schuag:Drug--true message wfthin Ptoposidon 36 wysiwyg:tAUhttp:/lwww.aacbee.cc Wraws/twW priatify-cgi Ethm Nadelmann,,who heads the Soros-f rude d Zindesrnith Center Drug Policy Foundation and sperms for the Hungarian-born.Sem on drug issues,says Soros 3ees the incarceration of addicts as a "human rights issue"and regards the 's drug haws as an am in which"the U.S.1s not an open 9if Icc�crrdingLeeaoffecaIfl �UPWW4; M6& M) S2t�na�e.) ` But what ax eyest the opponents of Proposition de most �po�li about Bootth+e California v went over incarceratim wherem possible."The most visible spokespe ople far the 1`do-on-36 campaign are courtjudges who even now are seceding a Bahl ge of off to tneaLa�te:nt and who say t if they had the kind of that `tion 36 provides, could ha nadle many more. "Nobody says that the existing;[punishment-based)rystem,works,"said Alameda County Superior Court 3 P Horn "We're showing that favoring Deaton over incarceration is nodt t�toutrt to no ` suicide.But this initiative does not proinm rwovery and treatment If[its backers]want flat-c legalization,let them say so."What troubles the judges is that Proposition 36 reduces their discretion by imposing greater procedural hurdles before a drug offender who does not comply with}els treatment regimen can be sent to jail. P most telling is the fact that both sides in the,debate at lauding a policy being put in place by New oWs Chief Judge Judith Kaye,who in June ordered the states courts to begin phning in a program tinder which most drug-addicted nonviolent offenders would be offered uaament instead of Jail.(Though the opponents of Proposition 36 int'out,correctly,that Kaye"s plan has mac stringent enforcetrient criteria,including testing.than Proposition 36 proposes.) Ina reasonable political system,you'd think that the state's political leaders would begin to address an issue where=the voters»judging by'Most polls=-Onderstand the folly and ineffectiveness,of existing polies.Despite dire warnings Un the nation's drug czar,Zininiertnan has a 7-0 record with his medical marihuana initiatives.Early polls also indicate strong support for Proposition 36. That doesn't mean it will pass;it hasflavors,particularly those that restrict the discretion of judges and other law enforcement officials,ghat oppoitemts can exploit.But the very trims on which this debate is being conducted caught to be a signal,even to the most timid of politicians,that drug,policy is ready for review and reform.When even t e pr=— claim that they favor less incarceration and more m and when everybody to liketle Kaye Flats,somebody ought to take them up on it+ PETER SCEIRAGppean thi an s pates Wednr"sdays.He can be reached at Bun 1", Satcrauacecartea,CA,9 79 or at You can we this stDry at htto:tlwww. S c2mtvc�4sinewstvcicesO5 2000913 htrri �► tea 2 of 2 9/14/00 11:45 AM SEP 182000 Mar a. Hart rMw= Ass M FM MFMORANDUAf Y: M DRu+a SrRATEOM MOM. lTm D. ter MCH,AW0=TEr�,INC. DATE., 3uNe IZ 2000 RE., KEY SURVEY FINDMIGS .13mvem May 16 and 19, 20!X1, Hart -R-=ow vA- =sr ucWd a nWImwi& ftkahom =rwV mnong a rerwentOyme Maple of 1,003 adutts for Drug SMulegim 21w mrvgy a7to�Auiw*=vs' Lwp=4b= of and eaftrdes tv%wd drug abuse and drag pate}. Tire mein of error for the awm is--'3 %. 2741 nmw oudines the kV survey fv Today, fully six In ban Amerlc3nxtthWthat drug.use can be handled beer by plrerrentlon and trea M eint"rams than by the criminal j sysbm. 2n for the fust time since we began polling for DnV Sba"Ies in IM,-a plur8ft of Americans think that awst of the additional funds tar fight the drug problem should be spent on pt tion,educatlonr and treabuent evidence of dw cwtmug shift in ptxbcopiaiot�regardingthe,best way to a �the drug pmblwi is Mat folly 60% of Americazm today think that drug tests is "mom of a public haft problem.better hm&cd by prmmaou a4tteafxnaent prog ms," cmptred with just 22% who bclicve it is'"more of a c d me problem beater handled by the mimina1 justice syM ew2l, DESCRIUS YOURit DRUG USE? More of public health problem better harxdied by 60 57 53 prevention and treatment programs More of a c rkm problem bar handled by the a'irnlnal 22 32 34 justke rStem Differential(public heath problem mucus atne problem) +38 •-t-25 re-19 P 0. HN* RlaQartefs As'��.�.r'�'r' k�e. As the pmeding table shows, the betva= the ptopc don of Americans who.thin& c.; �„ a r. 4n . •S9 r€rut drug use is. pub e Problem. tb� ate * think it`+ t ixim b eaaot bas�dot$?IGQ .: .' %«.a'':f. J.Yp_' �.5.s . over t6a five" n e ,: . . #Pram+19 points` n 19§to+3$ p y� pow lye Alt#tough strong majorities of all subgroups voice the opnaion that chug use is more of a public health concern ttm a came problem,the groups most lmdy to camgorl= it as a public health Lmw are Mgmmdm (77%),blacks (73% 18- to 34 ycac-olds (70'x)3, and Americans with some college education (6b%). Women (64% public health problean, 19% cti= problem) are also more likely than men(57%public health,25%came)toview drug use as am ism of public health father than cftr. Mdeed,women, 18-to 34-year-olds, and blacks are the g m ps among whom there has been the greatest increase since 1995 in the proportion who think drug use is better handled by prevention and treatment pm 9M=. Perhaps more namable is the =timing shift of puUlixc opinion regarding the best way to distn`butG an additional $10 million to fight the drug problem in local commuddes. At present, 8495 of adults dwxk tlat at least half the binding should be spe oat on prevention, education, and treatment, including 44% who think that all (21%) or tbrec-fourths (23%) of the moaoy should go toward these efforts and 40% who believe that half the money shouldgo toward prev .on, eddi , =d treatmew and that half should go toward.law enf ce=nt. C)WY 11% of adults say that three fourths(8%)or all(3%) of the fluids should be spall on law e0ftreeDient As the following.graph illustrates, the proportion of Americans who thank that the lion's share of the funds should be spent on prevention, educadon, and treatment bas steadily increased ove7r the past fare years,from.3496 in 1935,to 39%in 1997,to 44%today- ............................................................................. A w -red Di,,itribution of Additional $10 Nlilliuji PrcfQi 2314 or more on prew�ntma, •" 8314 or mare'on law adopt 4419 rs% ,. IM-1 f t 1995 ;1997 2000 There is strtm rapport=oss all subVuqs of Amcdcatz fru devoting the m*t1ty of the funds to preveat on,mon,and meat bde4 large majorities of all groups favor gw4ing at least IM the f ding on this effort. On ttte other bpi., no segment of the pTalatiou dcmorxstrn,t Pug, nay notable level of mr)port for ep+cnding most of ft money on law enforcement. 'ham a panomn is convicted of ing mattuana; cocaln+e,, or heroin; a Malleft of Arnartcans think that he or she should be fined and ren rd to pdr"dpeft In a drug treatment program rather then be forced to cerve time in Jain. Mnetheles*the public Is more likely to favor a fine and treatment rather than,elf time for a pemaon convicted of marijuana possession than fbr someone convicted of POMeMking r amine or heroin. As the M� table Awws,newly seven in ten adults (69%) *Ink dant people=wicted Of madJuana possession should be fined and required to undergo drag went;wMe just 14% t1liuk t3W they slcoul„d be sentenced to serve time in jail or prison. Although thm is more MWM for sentc wWg a person convicted of cosine or heroin px�ou, to jail, to4od es of adults Savor a find acid requtsed drug treatneat for both of these offenses as well. tN 0. Hark !��':+�rch f1:��ooa��, mac. Am E RICANS'PREFERENCE FOR DEALING wrrm PEOPLE CONVICTED Or POSSESSION OF SELECT-ED ILLEGAL DRUGS + j 2`frynry}.. ... , • •• Mrd"" • }YID i/y. 6 alm 9l0 % 9rb • Fined and mqufted to partidpate in a dmui 69 53 5� tnwbnef*prognsm Sentenced to serve tittle In jail or ptiwn 14 28 31 . 'fie varying levels of support for the stricter sentence of jai time for possession of diSerent Illegal chugs indicates the distinction that=ny Americans make between madjua na,and caeame or heroin. The following table demonstrates this by showing support for jail time versus a fine and treattrnent among supporters of a criminal justice approach to the drug problem and among those who favor spending most of additional funding on law cnfvrccnncnt. PREFERENCE FOR DF-ALiNG wiTti PEOPLE CONVICTED Or POSSESSION r ILLEGAL DRUGS OMS use Beaw Spend Majus M=d1ed By Wadvai of>Funde On Mamuana Me and require drug bvattznent .• 52 60 Sentence to,ail time 33 23 cocaine Fite and tequtre drug brt etawt 34 42 sent wou to Jail time 53 43 Hernia Fine and require drug trmtr=t 29 36 Sentence to jail UM 57 45 Regarding madjuans possession,it is notable that, even among adults who think that drag use is better handled by the criminal,justice system (529'0 fine and treatment, 33%jail time) and biose Who favor spending the majority of increased funding for community anti-drug efforts on law e �orcc�nartt find dad 2396 time),ymajoidies foveae scmu+ g rs to fuse and. acut rather than time ml is - `tN en it tory-,yqc acted .POC' orle at Jai*h '. p , howe er,,Buse two pro rtjt prr ent are mom+ ..to favar jail �tme b.. M rates flm a fine.and WL The; Surrey resWts indite tt'tat the Md-s�tyt+a•pollt 0111 t%IUW a*084ch tO the drug ptrdMetn that indudes pdwn sentences for all l trMduaais waidtled of drug possoleassion Is no lunw the key to winning ekctmi suppaet. Inxe+!4 AmwicO" 1"ext a +candktate wird proposes a prlmadly law-efl wcMent apprOach t>a drugs as amore conorned with winning des than genuinely tryMg to address d" Publesn. . The,fury is shit out on what Americans befteve to be the most dame Proposal for addmssing the drug probletn,►.burt tate public has none faith that aar Ouiddete who favors using nWnly a tr atina t WMM:3t is genuhWy trying to address tate probietn. By 61% to 2o%, adults think that a presidential ens&date who proposes addressing the drug problem with primarily a law-enforc Bram approach (including prison semtences for all individuals comri,cted of possesdng illegal ) is mora concerned with wianiag vot>vs than wth gmumely trryimg to addrm the drug problem. on the other band, the public is less `cal of the" ions of a canto who proposes using primmfly a treatment approach (Indo ing drug treatzn t services as an altemadve to incarceration for all Individuals convicted ted of possess n illegal drugs), alftagh 6= is not a clear cause us on the anceft of this candidate's proposal either. T1lirt9-eI&percent of adults believe that tis candidate genuinAy is trying to address the problem,whle 43%think that he or she is more c:oacerned wft ming votes. i7 We Amaicaws have more trrt that this candidare is really trying to help solve the problan, their responses indicate that they:ire still not decided on the most getaizne approaCIL . Mc=bers of upper-income households, middle-aged Americans s {age 35 to 64N•and college graduates are the,most suspicious that a candidate who proposes a law-mfvrcerucnt appy wh is just tryins to win votm On the other side of the coin, hme same subgroups also are the most y z , 'as Awc cluts k til pwbl=u. '" o+oo cr, even. these m are divided such a'"t ndidate's tntart s.� and M*miG"�i e: iglAt ptxkiva mtct�dt.i tor ha , r ientiona to deal with the problem:r, An ludieation of the pabUes u =wInry about the ftmad= that p=Wcuttial cn uclidatca hops to ac hicvc with their propoWs for addr= .swing the drag pmblaz i`is-*Is waikary is-that notable porticos of broth the sopportem of a cdmina ,justice approach and the =gyor€as of a tz apprnmu voice skepticism(bat a candidate who Wes a position solar tet their own is ,just trying to win, votes. Indeed, among Atncricaus who t iak that the problem of drug use is brier handled by.the criminal justice system, half (51%)be:Ileve Haat a candidate who fades a try law-edarce ment approach Is j=U*g to win vat=and only 344% think that ho or she genuinely is trying to deal with the problem. Sirnilady, wide a 48% plurality of adults who favor prevenfim snd tmatment think that a canudidate who &grees with thins approach really is trying to doing something about the drug problem, 37% of thaw believe that he or slue is more concerned with winning votes. " i yDrugStrategtes e )d14EWS RELEASE CONTACL Sarah Varela , My 19,2000 Lisa Ledearor 202/371.1999 *xa --AFRICANS FAVOR PUBLIC HEALTH APPROACH Tb #{ y COiYT OUING DRUGS 1-'-. � •«ay .. .. � v a.:i..--.w Y ,.i..tb� .`+` .. ''•" r,F yr�°+ -ti r Ps1b11C'. Rhid us of awpat *Promises tizcil.0"JA.NA"kze rr"eP.rd:ruid Ptia�eaxifCrxs WASHINGTON,DC—A,growing majority of Americans believe that Federal drug control stratW should place greater emphasis on treatment and proveation,and lea ampl s un cairai„al justice,according to a now pall conducted by Peter D.Hart Research arch A.ssociaatte s for Drug Strategies. Fully three is frm Americans say that drug we is"mora of a public health Problem better handled by prevention and trestmeut programs"than by the criminal justice Slightly more than half of respondents agreed with that statement three yews ago. "Americans are far ahead of the goverment is rad ding the critical need to change our nation's drug control funding priorities,"said Midea Falco,President of Thug Struegte s. "`For mom than two decades,thae ofarts have emphasized law enforcement mterdi+ctm and oversews programs.. Yet rates of chug abuse and addiction remain far too high,and drugs are cheaper and more re=My available than ever. Policyrnakers should listen to the.American public and find a,better balances between law enforcement and t and prevention in their drug control efforts." Today,the Federal goaverntnent spends two-thirds of the 518 billion national drug control budget an domestic law eaiorcernent strategies(49 percent)and intexdictiosr efforts(19 p=ent), compared with just 32 percent on drug prevention and trannent efforts. Wbenaskedbowto distribute an additional$10 million to tight the drug problem in local communities,mom them eight in tea respondents{84 percent)say that at least half the funding should be sit on prevention,education.and treatment,forty-four percent thunk that all or three-fourths of the mosey should be spent this way. "Ibis poll provides satin evidence of a steady shift in public views can how the problem of illegal drugs should be addr=exi,W'said Peter D.mart,President of Peter D.hart Research Associates. "More Americans than ever want policymakers to deal with illegal drugs ss a public health issue. And they aro cynical about the motives of presidential candidates who stress law enforcement as the primaq solution." The saucy indicates that presidential candidates who propose a"get tough,"approach to the drug Problem,—including prison.=Ac=m for all individuals convicted of drug Possession--may not win public support. Three in five Americans(61 percent)think that a presidential candidate who PmPOses ar primarily lawn enforcement approach to the drug problem is more concerned with winning votes than with genuinely addressing the drug problem. more Add One r The public is less skeptical of a presidential candidate who proposes a primarily treatment approach—including drug tre hnent services as an alternative to incarceration for iudividWa convicted of possessing r'llegal drugs. By comparison 43 percent think that he or she is more concerned with whining votes than°genuinely trying to deal with the problem., Other findings include: X . 'Se^sry'raven pcacent vf.. ispanics,73 pa+cent`of csa Aaarcauu�:nerd 70 int.of 18- #` to"24 year-olds view drug use as an is=of public heft rather than cnme ,And Women f (64 percent)are more likely than mea{57 percent)to agree. ■ A majority of Americans favor fines and required chug treatment for the offense of possessing marijuana.,cocaine or heroin. Nearly seven in tar(¢9 percent)think that a person convicted ofmadjuana possession should be finned,compared with 53 percent for cocaine possession and 51 percent for heroin possession • Evers among adults who think that drug use is better handled by the criminal justice system, more than half(52 percent)say that a person charged with m,aijuana possession should be fined and should undergo treatment rather than be jailed. Nearly half of respondeat say they personally know someone—a relative,neighbor,co- worker—who became addicted to illegal drugs. Between May 16 and 19,2000,Hart Research conducted a nationwide telephone survey among a representative sample of 1,003 adults for Dug Strategies. The surrey explored Americans' impressions of and attitud a toward drug abuse and drug policy. The margin of alar for the survey is+/-3.2 percent, Drug Strategies is a non-profit research institute promoting more effective approaches to the nation's drug problems thrown treatment,education„prevention and law enibrcament.