Drug Rehab Plan Needs Work

Four years ago, the state that had voted to send career criminals to prison for life with its tough three-strikes law shifted criminal justice policy in the opposite direction and opted to give drug users a break. Proposition 36, approved by 61% of California voters in 2000, allowed defendants convicted of drug use or possession to choose treatment in lieu of jail. It promised tax savings and signaled California’s retreat from failed “drug war” policies that relied on punishment to keep addicts in line. But a new analysis of the law’s effect points out challenges that never made their way into campaign ads.

UCLA researchers studying Proposition 36’s first two years found that it has succeeded in drawing addicts into treatment. More than 35,000 defendants each year enroll in therapy to avoid jail time. But two-thirds of them drop out without completing treatment, and thousands more sign up but never show.

Those in treatment programs are not the weekend pot smokers many voters envisioned. About 60% are convicted on felony drug charges. Ten percent are ex-convicts on parole, and 60% of those land back in prison within a year after beginning programs.

Getting hard-core addicts into treatment is good. But research into drug addiction shows that recovery is a torturous process, and hard-core users require more extensive -- and expensive -- treatment than the initiative is funded to provide. The $120 million that Proposition 36 doles out to counties each year is not enough to pay for the residential programs and social services that addicts need to stay clean.

Supporters believed the initiative would lead drug addicts into recovery and save the state millions by reducing prison rolls and cutting drug-related crime. Opponents worried that it would undercut more comprehensive, court-ordered treatment programs and keep addicts on the street, committing crimes. It is too soon to declare either side right, but Proposition 36, like the three-strikes law, will clearly need a tuneup down the line. Then, voters may have to decide whether they want to keep treating all comers -- which means a bigger budget and more treatment options -- or narrow the focus to keep more addicts out.