Drug Policy Alliance Logo
About Take Action News Publications and Library Blog Contact Donate Events Community eStore
Home > News > Press Room > Press Releases > Prop 36 Treatment Decimated, Called "End of an Era"

News News

Reform Conf 2009

Marijuana: The Facts
What's Wrong With the Drug War?
Overdose
Safety First: Parents, Teens and Drugs
Drug By Drug
State By State
Reducing Harm: Treatment and Beyond
Drugs, Police & the Law
Communities Affected
Drug Policy Around the World
Publications and Library
What People are Talking About

Your Email
> Manage Subscriptions
What People are Talking About

Join the Drug Policy Alliance Network's work to promote drug policies based on science, compassion, health, and human rights.
Donate
> Get Involved
In this Section
bottom
The Latest

An Exit Strategy for the Drug War



Send A Message
Full Text Resources

> more

Featured News
> more news

 

Suggested Web sites
  

Prop 36 Treatment Decimated, Called "End of an Era"
Drug Defendants Avoid Prison, But Denied Treatment

For Immediate Release: Friday, July 24, 2009. Contact: Margaret Dooley-Sammuli (213) 291-4190 or Tommy McDonald (510) 229-5215

SACRAMENTO – The new state budget deals a devastating blow to drug treatment in California. Treatment advocates warn that counties will not be able to provide treatment to all who are eligible under Proposition 36, a voter-approved measure that diverts low-level, nonviolent drug possession offenders to treatment. Though treatment is decimated, the sentencing law remains in effect and eligible defendants cannot be incarcerated.

“This is truly the end of an era,” said Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, deputy state director for the Drug Policy Alliance in Southern California. “For nearly a decade, California has led the nation’s most successful experiment with treatment instead of incarceration. Now we’re entering a new phase, where Prop. 36, fortunately, continues to protect low-level, nonviolent drug offenders from incarceration but where, sadly, there is little access to drug treatment. This is not what the voters intended, nor does it make fiscal sense.”

With guaranteed annual funding of $120 million in 2001-05, Prop. 36 cut state costs by $2.50-4 for every $1 spent and diverted 36,000 people to treatment each year (UCLA). In 2006, the Legislature responded to the program’s proven track record by boosting funding to $145 million. Since its inception, Prop. 36 has provided treatment to over 250,000 people and saved a net $2 billion. Nonetheless, the new budget could see Prop. 36 funding plummet to $18 million – just 8 percent of the $230 million-per-year level UCLA research found to be “adequate”. Even if a hoped-for transfer of federal dollars is secured, total treatment funding would not exceed $63 million (27 percent of “adequate”).

Given this reality, advocates on Thursday urged county and local governments to use limited local resources more innovatively by reducing the number of people entering the criminal justice system for low-level, nonviolent drug possession and by conserving those resources instead for local prevention and treatment systems. As one example of this approach, supporters pointed to San Diego’s Serial Inebriate Program (SIP), in which the county and city governments, law enforcement agencies and health systems collaborate to provide treatment to chronically homeless alcoholic individuals who would otherwise continue to soak up vast emergency room and criminal justice resources.

“Local law enforcement can be an important doorway into the public health system,” Dooley-Sammuli added. “Let’s face it. There’s no more room in court or jail. County and local governments can help reduce the burden by working with law enforcement and health systems to develop alternatives – by directing those who need it to county prevention and treatment services and by not prosecuting nonviolent, low-level drug possession in the first place."



Provide Feedback on this Page:

* 1.




 2.



 3.



   Please leave this field empty