California proposes punishment for drug possession as a “treatment-requiring serious crime”

IIn 2014, California voters passed a ballot initiative that made drug possession and shoplifting misdemeanors, rather than felonies, in most cases. For the past decade, those convictions have largely not been punishable by prison time under Proposition 47. In November, voters will decide whether to reverse that with Proposition 36, which would create a new category of “treatment-requiring offenses,” among other increased penalties.

Support 36the “Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act” would give prosecutors the ability to bring felony charges for third or subsequent possession of fentanyl and other so-called “hard drugs.” The bill, which is riddled with misinformation about fentanyl and synthetic drugs, proposes that people charged a third time should be given the option of treatment instead of incarceration. Those who do not complete treatment could be sentenced to three years in prison.

“If the offender refuses drug and psychotherapy, he or she will be sent to prison for possession of hard drugs. If convicted of a second crime requiring treatment (the fourth conviction for possession of hard drugs overall), a judge would have the option to impose a prison or state prison sentence,” Prop 36 states, encouraging the latter option.

“Only our state prisons are designed to ensure the safety of hardened drug dealers.”

“It saves money to keep people at home.”

There are no clear benefits to prescribed treatment, but many clear drawbacks – one of which is the increased risk of overdose immediately after treatment is completed. Denise Elerick, founder of the Harm Reduction Coalition of Santa Cruz County, said: filter that's one of the reasons she opposes Prop 36.

“If necessary, they will finish it and [then] “Resuming use is very risky,” she said. “T“It doesn't benefit the community to send someone to prison for three years… do you want that person working and being part of society with their families? It's cost-effective to keep people at home.”

Prop 36 blames Prop 47 for the rise in so-called property crime. However, a comprehensive review by the Public Policy Institute of California found that “there is no evidence that changes in drug arrests following Prop 47 or following the pandemic have led to an increase in crime.”

Disability Rights California specified that Prop 36 amounted to “punishing people who are poor and sick.” Vera Institute of Justice warned Tthat it would “undo the state's successes in reducing the dangerous, racially disparate, and unconstitutionally overcrowded prison population.” Studies have shown that programs funded by Prop 47 have reduced recidivism rates and saved the state an estimated $800 million in incarceration costs.

According to some estimates, Prop 36 could increase the prison population by “a few thousand.” According to others, Tens of thousands.

“It promotes a promise that cannot be kept.”

“Prop. 36 takes us back to the 1980s, to mass incarceration, it promotes a promise that cannot be kept,” said Governor Gavin Newsom (D), who opposes the measure. to ABC7“I would ask those who support this, especially the mayors: Where are the treatment places, where are the beds? 22 counties don't have a single inpatient treatment facility. 22 counties don't have one. I mean, they're lying to you.”

Although Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon and at least three other district attorneys oppose the measure, is forOther supporters include San Francisco Mayor London Breed, San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan.

Elerick told filter that many Democratic senators and representatives have avoided commenting on the measure.

“In some communities, mitigation has a reputational problem,” Elerick said. “We haven't seen the political advocacy that we saw with Prop 47. People are keeping quiet.”

Image (cropped) via Supreme Court of Arizona in Pima County