To submit your own opinion about any of these issues or make comments about this site, e-mail heathen@scientist.com.

Proposition 36: Drugs: Probation and Treatment Program

Last updated Wednesday, October 04, 2000

Summary: Requires that the penalty for possession of illegal drugs be changed to probation and sentencing to a drug treatment program instead of jail.

Text of Proposition: www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_bp.htm

More Information: California Voter Foundation Initiative Watch 2000

Pro sites: www.drugreform.org

Con sites: www.noonprop36.com

Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee: YES

State Libertarians also back Proposition 36, which requires probation and drug treatment instead of incarceration for nonviolent drug law offenders. "Libertarians were the first to demand an end to the War on Drugs," Hinkle pointed out. "Until that happens, Prop. 36 will reduce prison overcrowding, save state taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars per year, and probably save lives as well."

Webmaster: YES

There should be no penalties for drug possession. This proposition reduces the penalties, which makes it a step in the right direction. There are problems with forcing people to go into drug treatment programs, but it's still better than forcing them into prison.

Richard Rider: YES

Jack Hickey, Chair, LPC R41 (San Mateo County): NO

I endorse a NO vote on the measure. My rationale, as posted on www.dnet.com follows:

The following article, by Michael. R. Edelstein, Ph.D., published in the LPC Monthly September 2000 issue expresses my views.

Mandatory is Mandatory

I'm against Prop 36 (mandatory Drug Treatment) because:

1. Only a minority of drug users (~20%) have an addiction problem. It is unconscionable to force the rest into treatment.
2. No evidence exists that government-coerced treatment works. Studies have shown positive effects of treatment involve voluntary populations.
3. Prop 36 is a full employment bill for addiction counselors. The professional success of these counselors should be a function of consumer satisfaction, not of government mandate.
4. Most individuals who have overcome drug problems have succeeded on their own, without the help of treatment.
5. It is wrong to finance drug treatment by taxing people who would otherwise have used this money to help their own families, rather than for this lower priority in their personal budget.
6. The history of alcohol prohibition in the U.S. demonstrates that drug-related crime results from drug prohibition, not from the lack of forced treatment.
7. Prop 36 diverts us from the real solution to the drug nightmare; decriminalizing all drug activity -- using, selling, and producing -- immediately.

I would also add, that it is likely that an increase in apprehension of non-violent users of drugs by law enforcement officers, who might previously have exercised discretion, would result from a perception that they are doing these individuals a favor. We need to empty our jails of those convicted of "victimless crimes". Tax dollars saved by eliminating this unconscionable practice should be returned to the taxpayers.