Stout, Stout, Get it Worked Out!
'Kick a Ginger Day' Spawned At Least 5 Attacks on Redheaded Kids
Cool, Crafy, Community Event: Unique LA's Holiday Show
7 Reasons to Love L.A.
Recession Obsession: El Pollo 'Loco'
Several of California’s ballot propositions this year could have wide-ranging national ramifications. Among them is the less talked about Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act (NORA). This proposition aims to fundamentally reform California’s drug-control policy by providing resources for rehabilitation and treatment of drug users a priority of the prison and parole systems. Up to eighty percent of California’s prisoners have a substance use problem and most receive no treatment. The rationale behind Prop 5 is simple -- treating addiction and providing rehabilitation for nonviolent drug offenders is more humane and more cost-effective than simply imprisoning them, which currently costs over $10 billion a year. And the timing of Prop 5 is relevant -- California’s prisons are severely overcrowded (with more than 170,000 inmates in prisons that were built for 100,000) and the state’s prison health care system is so broken that a federal receiver has demanded billions from the state’s budget to overhaul the prison medical system.
California did not always carry this reputation. In the 1950’s through 1970’s, the state led the nation in rehabilitation, psychotherapy, research, and innovative education programs for inmates. Judges had greater power over lengths of sentences for inmates and parole boards were set up to decide if an offender had reformed and could be released. Over the years, California’s governors and legislature did away with this power of judges and parole boards, took rehabilitation out of the penal code, and passed more than 1,000 laws increasing mandatory prison sentences.
So what does Prop 5 intend to do? Prop 5 would provide system-wide reforms in regards to drug policy. It would create drug treatment and support programs for at-risk youth. It would provides court-supervised treatment programs for nonviolent drug offenders instead of sending them off to prison – a plan that would treat the underlying addictions, save thousands per year per offender, significantly reduce prison overcrowding, and ameliorate the cycle of nonviolent offenders going in and out of prison. Proponents point to costs of $3,000 to $10,000 per year per offender for outpatient treatment or residential treatment, versus $46,000 a year for imprisonment. Judges would have more case-by-case power to hold drug users accountable, and parole boards would be created to increase transparency and accountability. Inmates would be able to earn time off their prison sentences for participation and performance in rehabilitation programs. Furthermore, penalties for possessing small amounts of marijuana would be reduced from an infraction instead of a misdemeanor...
Supporters point to the success of Proposition 36, The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, which was passed by over 61% of California voters in 2000. This measure provided millions of dollars to treat nonviolent drug offenders, with over 36,000 people entering treatment each year, and has saved the state almost $2 billion to date. Proponents also note the unjust racial disparities that exist in drug sentencing nationally -- in May of this year, Human Rights Watch released a report documenting that black men were 11.8 times more likely than white men to enter prison on drug charges, despite similar rates of use. And 54 percent of all Americans entering state prisons with a new drug offense were blacks. The same report showed that harsher prison conditions usually result in more violent post-release criminal behavior.
How much would Proposition 5 cost?
Proponents of the measure say that Prop 5 would save the state money at a time when California is dealing with a budget crisis. They point to California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Office, which estimates a cost of $1 billion per year for these new programs; a savings of $1 billion per year for diversion from prison to treatment programs; and one-time savings of at least $2.5 billion from constructing fewer prisons (link to pdf of report). Opponents cite the increased bureaucracy involved and note the unknown fiscal effect on expenditures for counties.
Who supports Proposition 5? California Democratic Party, League of Women Voters of California, California Nurses Association, California Society of Addiction Medicine, California Academy of Family Physicians, California Federation of Teachers, National Council of La Raza, California Labor Federation, NAACP, American Civil Liberties Union, Homeless Health Care Los Angeles, among others. Individuals who support the proposition include George Shultz (former US Secretary of State and current chairman of Governor Schwarzenegger’s Council of Economic Advisors) and George Soros, billionaire and founder of the Open Society, who has pumped more than 1.4 million dollars into the proposition. The Drug Policy Alliance Network sponsored the proposition.
What do opponents think? Opponents state that this proposition is not about rehabilitation, and that it serves as a “get-out-of-jail-free” card to drug offenders and drug dealers. They have referred to the proposition as the Drug Dealers Bill of Rights. They believe that those who kill or hurt others while under the influence of alcohol or drugs would be siphoned into treatment programs instead of being punished for the crimes they committed. Instead of short-circuiting the revolving door in and out of prison for nonviolent drug offenders, opponents believe this measure would create an “express lane” for drug dealers to get back onto the streets. They also point to increased bureaucracy created at costs of hundreds of millions, and that costs would be shifted from the state to the counties.
Who opposes Proposition 5? An impressive array of groups oppose Prop 5, including former California governors Pete Wilson and Gray Davis, Mothers against Drunk Driving (MADD), 32 California District Attorneys, California Chamber of Commerce, California Narcotics Officers Association, California Police Chiefs Association, California Peace Officers’ Association, D.A.R.E. America, National Drug-Free Workplace Alliance, and a number of others. The LA City Council also recently opposed the proposition. Individuals who oppose the proposition include Martin Sheen – a top donor and co-chair of No on Prop 5, and most recently, John Walters (the National Drug Control Policy Director aka the U.S. “Drug Czar”), among others.
For more information:
Yes on Prop 5 campaign and the money they have raised and spent.
No on Prop 5 and the and the money they have raised and spent.
California Voter information on Proposition 5.
Photo credits:
"I took Five" photo by N-ino via Flickr.
Prison image by tomsaint11 via Flickr.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
wait, you mean people in law enforcement have a vested interest in perpetuating this awful, bloated and counterproductive "war on drugs"? I don't believe it. Let's just keep building prisons and turn the rest of our police into full-on paramilitary hit squads. Sounds fantastic.
God, I can't wait for the baby-boom generation to die off so we can move past this nonsense.
I'm a boomer and I've been against the WOD from it's inception. Nixon (a Republican) started it and Reagan (a Republican) greatly expanded it.
I never felt it would be productive, is just one more excuse to reduce civil rights and take property from someone without due process, as well as an enormous drain on the economy with nearly nothing to show for it.
The only people to benefit from the WOD are corporations that build prisons and law enforcement departments wanting new equipment.
Many of the people sitting in prison are there for smoking or using what amounts to a weed.
And because the Fed. has been so insistent on eradicating it we can no longer use Hemp, a close relative of Cannabis, which would help us produce a much less harmful (to the environment) cloth, a much less harmful (to the environment) paper pulp, and a easy to grow oil source. One that does not require intensive agriculture to grow.
YAY. Finally something about 5!!!
From: Ethan Nadelmann [enadelmann@drugpolicy.org]
Dear Friends,
I've never invested as much in anything as I have in Proposition 5, our ballot initiative in California. If we win on Election Day, this will be the biggest reform of prisons and sentencing in U.S. history and the biggest reform of drug policy since the repeal of alcohol Prohibition seventy-five years ago.
But we both know you can't make a change this big without stirring up intense opposition from vested interests. Last week the powerful prison guards union contributed $1 million to the opposition campaign. That's on top of hundreds of thousands of dollars from Indian tribes/casinos with close links to law enforcement as well as $100,000 from the California Beer and Beverage Distributors.
And I just found out that today the Bush administration's drug czar is in Sacramento to announce his opposition to Proposition 5.
If we win, the new law will effectively transfer $1 billion annually from prison and parole to treatment and rehabilitation and save taxpayers $2.5 billion because new prisons will not need to be built. The result will be fewer drug and other nonviolent offenders behind bars, and also reductions in crime and recidivism. The initiative even includes a sensible provision to reduce the penalty for possession of small amounts of marijuana to the equivalent of a traffic ticket.
This initiative, unlike most, was drafted with keen attention to decades of empirical research on what works best in reducing incarceration, crime and recidivism and enabling people with drug problems to get their lives together.
I am not instinctively a fan of the ballot initiative process. But it seems to me that the process is ideally used when the legislature and/or the governor are unable or unwilling to enact worthy legislation, which is favored by a substantial majority of the public, and which advances the interests of those people who are most disempowered in the legislative process. That is clearly the case here.
There has never been a return on investment in major reform of drug policy, prisons and sentencing like this. Raising the millions of dollars needed to draft this initiative, get it on the ballot, and hopefully win it has been no easy task and I am still trying to raise the final million with two weeks to go until Election Day.
So we have a lot riding on this initiative, not just for DPA but also for the hundreds of thousands of people who will either sit in prison or get a second chance, depending on whether or not Prop 5 wins on Election Day.
Our opponents think they can defeat Prop 5 by resorting to the same old scare tactics that filled the prisons in the first place. But we know we'll win if voters focus on the bottom line, which is that Prop 5 will reduce prison overcrowding, reduce crime and recidivism, directly help huge numbers of people, and save taxpayers billions of dollars.
Please tell everyone you know in California to
VOTE YES FOR PROP 5.
I can't believe I haven't heard anything about this one yet! Ethan, no worries you have my vote.
P.S. Whats the diff between an infraction and a misdemeanor in regards to MaryJane?
@Polaroidgirl, sorry I didn't explain the difference between an infraction and a misdemeanor above. It's an important point, because Prop 5 is looking to reverse the charge for a small amount of Marijuana back to an infraction.
There are three types of criminal offenses in California -- infractions, misdemeanors, and felonies. Infractions are usually enforced with a fine, no jail time (or less than a few days) and no notes on your permanent criminal record. Traffic violations are an example of infractions in CA.
Misdemeanors are more serious crimes (not as serious as felonies), carrying with them a more severe fine and possible jail time of up to one year. Other penalties are involved too. Misdemeanors will likely show up on a background check, are permanently on one's criminal record.
In the case of Marijuana possession in California -- ALL possessions, even less than an ounce -- are classified as misdemeanors under current law (they were classified as infractions previously, in the 1970's).
For those possessing less than an ounce of marijuana, CA penal code enforces up to $100 fine and court charges, and the misdemeanor is permanently on one's criminal record (unless a judge can substitute narcotics anonymous or community service instead of permanent damage to one's record).
For possession of greater than 1 ounce of maryjane, it's still a misdemeanor but with heftier penalties. One can face probation, up to $500 fines, and up to 6 months in jail (although there are alternatives to jail including drug court or prop 36 as passed in 2000).
Prop 5 would move maryjane possession back to infraction status.
Thanks, Colfax for posting Ethan Nadelmann's email. He and the Drug Policy Alliance Network are such a powerhouse. In a wonderful way.
Thanks for the clarification and just so you know I would vote yes even without the change to MJ policy!