Everett graduated from UCLA in 1990 with a BA in English/American
studies. She is currently working on the Proposition 36
campaign.
By Cristina Everett
As a college student you can relate to the following analogy
regarding why you should vote “yes” on Proposition 36
on November 7th. Consider this: a professor pops a quiz on you and
you haven’t been keeping up. You fail miserably.
Miraculously, the professor decides to give the same test again,
but does nothing to further prepare you, and you don’t devote
any time to learning the material. You fail again.
Without the tools to be successful, a competent professor, and
the will to comprehend the material, you probably will not be
successful.
Now, consider this: a person is arrested for simple drug
possession. Although no other crime has been committed, this person
is sentenced to a jail term. Perhaps this person has an addiction
problem. In prison, this person has little chance of being given
the treatment ““ the tools ““to beat the addiction and
return to society as a contributing member. They are released still
addicted, with a criminal record, and unable to reintegrate into
society. They are set up to fail.
Proposition 36 is about treatment as opposed to incarceration
for the type of drug offender who is most likely to benefit from
treatment. Proposition 36 does not apply to anyone who has
committed a concurrent criminal act or has a violent history.
Proposition 36 aims to catch drug addicts before they get into the
cycle of resorting to harmful and dangerous activity to support
their habit. This is why it is called the Substance Abuse and Crime
Prevention Act.
Who supports Proposition 36? The list of endorsers is long and
diverse. A sampling: California Association of Alcoholism and Drug
Abuse Counselors, California Psychiatric Association, California
Women’s Commission, Progressive Jewish Alliance, Republican
Liberty Caucus, Rainbow Caucus of the California Democratic Party,
Dolores Huerta of United Farm Workers/AFL-CIO, Willie L. Brown
““ Mayor of San Francisco, and the California Public Defenders
Association.
These individuals and groups know that drug addicts must be
treated for the benefit of themselves and society rather than
warehoused in prison at a cost to taxpayers of upwards of $25,000
per year.
That brings us to the simple economic issue. In approximate
numbers, reputable treatment would cost the state $5,000 a year per
case. As stated earlier, incarceration runs the state about $25,000
a year per case. In the state of California, there are
approximately 19,700 people in prison for simple drug possession
offenses.
Fewer prisoners means no need for new prisons. More prison space
will be reserved for the truly violent criminals who pose a threat
to society. Fewer prisons and prisoners is why the non-partisan
state Legislative Analyst believes that Proposition 36 will save
California taxpayers $1.5 billion.
Who opposes Proposition 36? The very groups that would benefit
from more prisoners. A few examples are the California Probation,
Parole and Correctional Association, California Bail Agents and the
California Correctional Peace Officers Association. The CCPOA is
one of the largest lobby groups in California. They have an obvious
vested interest in the growth of the prison population and the
development of new prison facilities.
What do our opponents say? Those in opposition to Proposition 36
claim that the proposition seeks to decriminalize drugs. Not true.
To be diverted under Proposition 36 means offenders are convicted
of a felony and placed on probation, like many other criminals.
Proposition 36 simply changes sentencing; instead of incarcerating
addicts, their criminal sentence is treatment, plus any other
sanctions deemed necessary by the court. Instead of biding time
until the next fix while in jail, an offender can work toward
changing a dangerous lifestyle.
Simply put: you don’t put a fire out by yelling at or
ignoring it; rather, you take quick action to douse the flames.
Opponents also argue that we already have a sufficient system in
place with the drug courts. Yet while drug courts do offer
alternatives to prison, currently they only serve about 2 percent
of the population that could qualify for the program. Proposition
36 would extend the reach of the drug courts and give a much larger
population access to effective treatment.
Furthermore, they say that Proposition 36 will render the drug
court judges powerless. Again, not true. A judge will have the
power to determine what treatment program would be most appropriate
and would supervise the offender until the offender was
sufficiently recovered. Offenders can be, at the discretion of a
judge, sentenced to one to three years in state prison if they do
not prove themselves amenable to treatment.
Finally, opponents claim that Proposition 36 opens the door for
fly-by-night treatment providers including such things as
“online” treatment programs. This is simply not true.
Every treatment provider must be accredited by the state, and a
judge has the final word on which treatment provider is the most
effective for each individual offender.
Who am I that you should take my opinion to your local polling
place? I am someone quite like yourself. I am a UCLA graduate
(1990), a former public school educator, someone who read the
admittedly technical language of Proposition 36 and came out for
the side of effectiveness, fairness, and what would be the most
safe and healthy choice for our community.
Why should you care? Because you have committed yourself to
higher education at a public university and will make choices that
continue to benefit future generations of Californians. Because you
are, or will soon be, a taxpayer who cares how your hard earned
money is managed. Because if you have ever done poorly on a test or
made a mistake, you would be grateful for the tools and the time to
go back and get a better grade or fix the mistake.
A “yes” vote on Proposition 36 will give medical
professionals the necessary tools to help people suffering from
drug addiction. Such treatment will help addicts return to society
as healthier, more stable and more productive individuals.