A Drive for Drug Camps Is Launched

California legislators helped kick off a statewide campaign in Ventura Friday for an initiative to lock up drug offenders in “cocaine camps.”

If passed in the Nov. 6 election, Proposition 129 would earmark $1.7 billion over eight years to combat “the avalanche of drugs which are entering our state,” Assemblyman Jack O’Connell (D-Carpinteria) told about 20 people gathered by the fountain at the Ventura County Government Center.

The initiative would increase personal income and bank and corporation taxes by bringing the state tax laws into closer conformity with federal law. That would result in possible revenue increases of about $1.7 billion over eight years, proponents say.

The proposition also calls for issuing $740 million in general obligation bonds to build four low-cost camps in remote areas of the state. Up to 36,000 drug offenders would be housed at the camps, where drug treatment programs would be available.

One camp would be constructed on unused federal land in the Mojave Desert and the rest would be built on unused military property, said Assemblyman Johan Klehs (D-Castro Valley).

“The typical minimum-security prison can cost as much as $72,000 per bed, but the camps could be as low as $15,000 per bed,” Klehs said.

Inmates might be housed in 100-man dormitories and spend much of their day outside in the desert while they “do their time--every unpleasant minute of it,” Klehs said.

Of the $220 million a year provided by Proposition 129, 60% would go to police and sheriff’s departments, and 40% would be used for drug education and treatment.

Proposition 129 also would undo a provision of Proposition 115, the crime victims initiative passed in June. In streamlining the judicial system, Proposition 115 repealed the right of privacy as written in the state Constitution. That right placed in the Constitution in 1972, has provided the legal basis for many court decisions upholding a woman’s right to an abortion.

Abortion-rights advocates want the privacy provision restored to the state Constitution if the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, Roe vs. Wade, is overturned, ending a woman’s legal right to an abortion.

“Proponents of 115 said that repealing the privacy clause was not their intent, so instead of waiting two years to fix the mistake, we added the corrected version on to this proposition,” Klehs said.