Prop. 36’s Approach for Drug Addicts

* Re “What’s Wrong With Prop. 36? Ask the Addicts,” by George Skelton, Oct. 12:

As a former cocaine and heroin addict, I know a bit about drug treatment from personal experience. But as the author of a book on how to choose addiction treatment, I know that personal experience alone shouldn’t guide policy. It’s just too narrow. Some addicts may claim that they need the “stick” of jail time to prod them into treatment--but if that really worked, why would the relapse rate continue to be over 90% and why hasn’t locking up so many people put even a tiny dent in the number of addicts? Also, if the threat of jail is crucial, how do alcoholics and cigarette addicts (who are hooked on the most addictive drug known) ever recover?

Prop. 36 simply recognizes the reality that most addicts relapse several times before getting clean--and keeps them from being punished prematurely.

MAIA SZALAVITZ

New York City

*

Drafted by newspaper writers, your Oct. 12 editorial criticizes Prop. 36 for being drafted by defense attorneys. Prop. 36 is a good idea because nonviolent drug use isn’t as sensational as news reports about jail time can make it seem. If Prop. 36 passes, defense attorneys will get less work, because defendants who successfully complete treatment will not face imprisonment. This fair approach to nonviolent drug offenses is not motivated by lawyers’ economic self-interest.

DAVID A. HOLTZMAN

West Los Angeles

*

The carrot-stick debate over hard drugs and Prop. 36 is another example of the avoidance of a common-sense, scientific method for resolving political conflict. Measure the effects and costs of implementing the carrot, Prop. 36’s proposal of expanded drug treatment, without the stick of imprisonment, in one city or county. Compare this with the cost effectiveness in a matched city or county of the carrot of expanded drug treatment plus the stick of judge-ordered imprisonment for those abandoning treatment. Such a controlled experiment would not only produce the best choice of competing policy theories, but could set a precedent for resolving political conflict in a democracy.

NICHOLAS V. SEIDITA

Northridge