cannabisnews.com: Vote Backing Treatment for Drug Offenses 





Vote Backing Treatment for Drug Offenses 
Posted by FoM on November 08, 2000 at 08:04:32 PT
By Jenifer Warren, Times Staff Writer
Source: Los Angeles Times
 A ballot measure requiring California to treat nonviolent drug offenders as sick rather than criminally culpable appeared headed for victory Tuesday, suggesting that discontent with the nation's drug war is beginning to reshape criminal justice policy.   Passage of Proposition 36 would make California the second state in which voters have demanded government-funded treatment, rather than imprisonment, for low-level drug criminals. 
  "People finally understand that addiction is a disease--a treatable disease--and that the answer to this epidemic is not locking addicts up," said Gretchen Burns Bergman, chairwoman of the Yes on 36 campaign and mother of a son incarcerated three times for drug offenses.   Conceding defeat, foes of the measure noted that they were outspent 9 to 1 by its backers, a gap that severely limited the reach of the opposition campaign.   "The devil was in the details of Proposition 36, and we just didn't have the resources to educate the voters," said Larry Brown of the California District Attorneys Assn.   Barring a late-night surprise, Proposition 36 was poised to become the second drug-related ballot measure opposed by law enforcement but embraced by California voters, who endorsed use of marijuana for medical reasons in 1996.   On other statewide measures Tuesday, voters were heartily favoring a plan that sought to place modest limits on campaign funding but threatened to gut a much tougher political reform law that has been tied up in the courts.   A measure to give lawmakers state-funded retirement benefits was headed for defeat, while another seeking to make it harder to impose regulatory fees on industry was trailing.   Proposition 36 asked Californians to launch a wholesale shift in the way the courts handle nonviolent drug offenders. Modeled after a program adopted by Arizona voters in 1996, the measure proposed spending $120 million a year to treat, instead of incarcerate, those arrested for drug possession and ex-convicts who violate parole by using narcotics.   Supporters built their campaign on polls revealing voter disillusionment with the nation's 20-year-old war on drugs and kept their message simple: Addiction, their ads argued, should be treated as a medical problem, not a criminal one.   Opponents had some heavy hitters on their side, among them Gov. Gray Davis, Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer and scores of drug court judges, who complained that the measure carried too few sanctions for offenders who relapse. Actor Martin Sheen cut TV ads against the initiative, and Betty Ford, namesake of one of the nation's most famous drug treatment clinics, fired off last-minute e-mails attacking it as "a giant step backward."   But the solid advantage in fund-raising went to Proposition 36 supporters, thanks to three millionaire businessmen who have bankrolled drug policy initiatives across the country. With $2.8 million to work with, backers were on TV far more frequently than foes, who raised about $440,000 and saw promises of big dollars from the state prison guards union evaporate.   With the exception of the big-bucks fight over school vouchers, the campaigns involving most of this year's other statewide initiatives were ho-hum affairs.   Proposition 34, the campaign finance measure, sought to impose limits on contributions and require candidates to report donations more frequently. It was written by legislative leaders and backed by organized labor and the Republican and Democratic parties--groups that opposed earlier reform proposals.   The opposition was led by the League of Women Voters and California Common Cause. They argued that the real issue Tuesday was not Proposition 34 but an earlier, much tougher initiative approved overwhelmingly in 1996. That stricter measure has been stalled in the courts, but it may be reinstated and could be nullified by Proposition 34, foes argued.   Another low-profile measure sought to make it easier for governments to contract out for engineering and design work for projects ranging from schools to highways. Proposition 35, put on the ballot by private engineering firms seeking a larger share of lucrative government business--such as the potential multibillion-dollar traffic relief plan proposed by Gov. Davis--was holding a modest lead, incomplete returns showed.   The union representing Caltrans engineers led the opposition, focusing television commercials on the fact that the measure does not require competitive bidding.   Proposition 37, placed on the ballot by tobacco, alcoholic beverage and oil interests, asked voters to redefine certain regulatory fees as taxes. A two-thirds majority vote of the Legislature or local electorate is required to approve taxes, whereas most fees can be imposed by a simple majority of the governing body.   Regulatory fees are intended to pay for the costs of adverse environmental or health consequences of a product. But Proposition 37 sponsors called them hidden taxes that end up hitting consumers in the pocketbook. Foes, including conservationists and health activists, said the initiative would shield businesses from paying for their harmful activities and saddle average taxpayers with the costs.   Proposition 33 was the measure calling for reinstituting pension, health and other retirement benefits for state legislators. Voters stripped lawmakers of their publicly financed pensions in 1990, but legislators argued that it was unfair to deny retirement benefits to men and women who leave outside careers to serve in Sacramento.   Opponents said Proposition 33 represented an arrogant response to voters who abolished legislative pensions a decade ago, and warned of a return to an era of bloated legislative benefits. The campaign was a sleepy one, with supporters raising about $93,000 and no official group organized to oppose it.   Even quieter was the debate over Proposition 32, which asked voters to authorize the issuance of $500 million in bonds to continue financing low-interest home loans to about 2,500 military veterans. Incomplete returns showed two out of three state voters favored the bonds, which mostly benefit Vietnam veterans. They are repaid by the vets' mortgage payments and are not a direct cost to taxpayers.   Aside from the statewide propositions, California voters confronted a diverse array of regional issues, including about 50 growth-related measures and an effort to rein in the expansion of dot-coms.   * A measure in San Luis Obispo County sought to prohibit agricultural open space and rural residential land from being rezoned for development during the next 30 years without a countywide vote.   With all but a few precincts counted, returns showed Measure M losing after a contentious campaign that pitted ranchers, real estate businesses and developers against slow-growthers who say suburban sprawl is consuming their oak-studded valleys and hillsides.   Growth was also a hot issue in Sacramento County, where developer C.C. Myers seemed certain to fall short in his bid to rezone 2,000 acres of grazing land and build a 3,000-home golf course development. In a blizzard of clever TV commercials, Myers portrayed his development as a godsend for seniors seeking housing. Foes, however, called it a millionaire's blatant end-run around the county's land-use planning process.   A few hours' drive south in Tracy, a Central Valley farm community discovered by Silicon Valley commuters, voters approved a proposal to slash the number of houses that can be built annually within city boundaries.   * In San Francisco, anxiety over the displacement of artists and nonprofit groups by the onslaught of big-budget dot-coms came to a head with votes on two competing growth-control measures.   The fate of Proposition L, which sought to ban large new office spaces in parts of the city experiencing an influx of high-tech firms, was uncertain late Tuesday. Proposition K, favored by Mayor Willie Brown and developers, was less restrictive, and going down to defeat.   * Before election day, San Diego voters seemed closely divided over two candidates vying to succeed two-term San Diego Mayor Susan Golding, but Superior Court Judge Dick Murphy ultimately claimed victory. Murphy, 57, and County Supervisor Ron Roberts, 58, spent much of the campaign debating the stalled project to build a downtown baseball stadium for the Padres and a controversial lease for Qualcomm Stadium that requires the city to reimburse the National Football League's Chargers for unsold seats.   Both Republicans and proteges of former Mayor Pete Wilson, the candidates agreed on most issues and shared a background as city councilmen in the 1980s. Early returns showed the race too close to call.   Fresno voters also were choosing a new mayor Tuesday, and unofficial results showed a TV star known as "Bubba" had triumphed in his bid to make the valley city only the second in California to have an actor as its mayor.   Alan Autry, who played the good-old-boy cop Lt. Bubba Skinner in the TV series "In the Heat of the Night," defeated Dan Whitehurst, 52, a former mayor who left office 15 years ago to pursue a fortune in the funeral business. Autry, 48, had voted only once in the past two decades--a vote cast for himself in the March primary--but he used his celebrity and lack of political experience to woo support.   * In Mendocino County, voters solidly endorsed a proposal to make their county the first place in the country to allow marijuana cultivation for personal use. Critics said Measure G, which would permit residents to grow up to 25 plants, was pointless because state and federal drug laws would render it moot. But backers called it an important protest statement against the multibillion-dollar war on drugs.   * Residents of Morro Bay, northwest of San Luis Obispo, decided they didn't want a say over any future expansion or replacement of a power plant whose three smokestacks dominate their coastline. Owners of the plant want to build a more efficient and powerful facility, would have been required to get local voter approval under Measure Q, but unofficial returns showed the measure lost Tuesday night. Note: Campaign funding limits are winning. Retirement benefits for legislators are headed for defeat. Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)Author: Jenifer WarrenPublished: Wednesday, November 8, 2000 Copyright: 2000 Los Angeles TimesAddress: Times Mirror SquareLos Angeles, CA 90053Fax: (213) 237-4712Contact: letters latimes.comWebsite: http://www.latimes.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:California Campaign For New Drug Policyhttp://www.drugreform.org/Prop. 36: Treatment not Jail in Drug Cases http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7578.shtmlMartin Sheen Addresses Addiction, Ballot Measurehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7399.shtmlPass The Ballot, My Friend http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7395.shtmlCannabisNews Articles - Proposition 36http://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=Proposition+36 
END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #4 posted by Fred Nelson on April 08, 2001 at 15:20:46 PT:
Hello
Dear los Angeles Times,I love your news paper but I have a question do you have the address for morro bay smokestacks because i have a school assignment and I have to know it thank youFred Nelson
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by dddd on December 31, 2000 at 20:54:11 PT
gangsters
Well spoken John Smith.Most anyone who ends up having a law enforcement career,and is involved in busting in the name of the drug war,,,,becomes a member of a cult-like organization....A member of an exclusive club,who's members become to believe that they are above the laws that apply to the common citizens.....dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by John Smith on December 31, 2000 at 19:30:34 PT:
DEA Nonsense
I know a few 'big time' DEA agents. They glow with pride when they tell me about their latest seizures. Automobiles, personal property. They also proudly drive the vehicles around 'as a show of pride and their awsome power. They appear to be government santioned mob bosses. Sounds absurd, I know. However, the evidence is available to anyone wanting to 'understand the drug war'.DEA stealing in the name of controlling drugs is nonsense.Kicking in doors, throwing citizens on the ground, and overdressed for overkill.Yes, this is one aspect of the failed 'war on drugs'.America is a mess. I'm sure George Bush and his boys will get everything figured out.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on November 08, 2000 at 09:07:44 PT:
Such a Shame!
""The devil was in the details of Proposition 36, and we just didn't have the resources to educate the voters," said Larry Brown of the California District Attorneys Assn."What? The bully pulpit of lies and deceit in the Drug War was insufficient to prevail? What arrogant nonsense. The fact is that the California electorate was wise enough to see a truth that eludes the moral micro-managers. Larry is out of step with reality, reasonable policy, and the will of the people. 
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: