Mandatory treatment will exacerbate California's drug problems

Proposition 36 capitalizes on legitimate public frustration over homelessness, the spread of deadly fentanyl, and the rise of organized retail crime. But like some other poorly drafted initiatives, it presents solutions that are flawed, outdated, and expensive.

Proposition 36 could actually make these problems worse. Voters deserve real solutions to these problems. False hope will only further anger the public and make it harder for people with drug problems to get the help they need.

In short, this measure is the wrong remedy for the problems we face. It would cut tens of millions of dollars annually from treatment and rehabilitation programs and increase our prison population – all without our ability to finance it.

Passing Proposition 36 would set California back decades – to a time when simple drug possession was a felony, tens of thousands of lives were upended by prison overcrowding, and state and local governments wasted billions on prisons and jails while inmate numbers skyrocketed.

For me, this is not a philosophical issue. As mayor of a major city, I would support any measure, even an increase in criminal and civil penalties, if I was confident that the proponents and the system would provide much-needed treatment for addicts of these terrible drugs. While proponents claim that Proposition 36 is about drug treatment, the measure does not provide a single dollar for new programs and would, in fact, cut tens of millions of dollars annually from proven programs.

That's because Proposition 36 would increase the number of incarcerated people, thereby reducing state savings from a measure voters passed in 2014 – savings that the measure intended to go to programs for mental health, drug treatment, truancy, dropout prevention, and victim services. Proposition 36 would place a financial burden on state and local governments, leading to even greater cuts to essential services – including those designed to address homelessness. More than 20 counties do not have a single bed or space for drug treatment.

Accountability for criminal activity must be taken. But there is a better way than Proposition 36.

This year, the governor and legislature passed comprehensive new laws that increase criminal penalties for both fentanyl trafficking and shoplifting and are actually stricter and more effective than Proposition 36.

Proposition 36 puts addicts in a bind: They would be sent to prison if they did not undergo drug treatment. At the same time, funding for treatment would be drastically cut, meaning that treatment places would no longer be available.

Proposition 36 isn't cheap. The state's nonpartisan legislative analyst estimates the measure would cost the state tens to hundreds of millions of dollars annually without the ability to pay for it. That means cuts to services people depend on or tax increases to fund more prisons and jails.