cannabisnews.com: New Calif. Drug Law May Be Too Soft, Some Fear 





New Calif. Drug Law May Be Too Soft, Some Fear 
Posted by FoM on December 26, 2000 at 08:02:08 PT
By Nita Lelyveld, Inquirer Staff Writer
Source: Philadelphia Inquirer
When actor Robert Downey Jr. was arrested last month in a Palm Springs spa, news reports cataloged the woes of the troubled actor, allegedly found once again with illegal drugs after a year in state prison and numerous bouts of drug treatment. Downey's latest arrest may land him in prison again. It happened too early for him to benefit from a new California law that requires community-based drug treatment - not jail time - for most nonviolent drug offenders, even those already on probation or parole.
Still, some who work with drug offenders argue that Downey's bad timing may, in fact, be fortunate. While treatment is the key, they say serious consequences - specifically, jail time - often are the only things that force addicts to straighten out. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Stephen A. Marcus, who runs Los Angeles' first and largest drug court, said his method of shepherding addicts through treatment and into recovery involves not just the carrot of encouragement but the stick of stiff penalties for failure."Certainly, the mixture of sanctions and incentives that we use, we believe that creates a good outcome," he said. "We give them a slap on the back, we praise them in court, we clap for them, we might give them little awards for their progress through the program."On the other hand, if someone relapses, doesn't go to meetings or maybe misses a court date, there are consequences. There's accountability. They can end up going to jail for up to 30 days or for a four-day weekend."Last month's passage of Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, has left many in the law enforcement and drug-treatment communities conflicted - happy about the new attention to, and money for, drug treatment, but concerned about the lack of accountability for drug users. That is because the ballot initiative, when it goes into effect in July, will all but end the threat of jail for those convicted of nonviolent drug-possession and drug-use charges. The measure, whose sponsors argue that drug use should be seen as a public health, not a criminal problem, wipes convictions off offenders' records if they successfully complete licensed drug-treatment programs. The campaign was funded by three businessmen - New York financier George Soros; Peter Lewis, CEO of Progressive Insurance in Cleveland; and John Sperling, founder and CEO of the University of Phoenix, a network of private adult education institutions. It was run by the same team that brought California the medical-marijuana initiative in 1996 - and has since helped pass similar initiatives around the country.The group's central argument for medical marijuana and Proposition 36 is that America's drug war has failed. The nation, the group says, needs to find new ways to deal with its drug problem.Sixty-one percent of California voters backed the initiative, which argues that drug use should be tackled as a public health problem. Dave Fratello, campaign manager for Proposition 36, said voters' overwhelming support for the proposition indicated that they agreed."We're sort of going through a societal learning process, realizing that drug users are not some other, outside category. They're not a collective group that everyone agrees is our enemy," he said. "A drug user is likely to be you or me or your neighbors - and we want the best for these people. At the same time as we can be very, very tough on crime, we can be very, very compassionate about drug users."California's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office estimated that the measure each year would move 24,000 drug offenders from prison, and an additional 12,000 from jails, into community-based drug programs.The office said the decrease in prisoners would save the state about $100 million to $150 million each year, as well as an additional $500 million overall if it helped the state avoid building more prisons. Counties also would likely save about $40 million, the analysis said.For those who deal with drug offenders, the new money that Proposition 36 makes available for treatment is cause for celebration. The law requires the state to contribute $60 million to a Substance Abuse Trust Fund in the first fiscal year, and $120 million each year for the next five years.The money will be distributed to counties to spend on drug-treatment programs and related programs for drug offenders, including family counseling.Many experts raise concerns about the program details. For example, the state already has a waiting list of 5,000 for drug treatment without the huge influx of Proposition 36 candidates. Also, the measure is vague about what drug-treatment programs will have to include. Finally, there is the requirement that none of the new funding be used for drug testing services.Some say they know from experience that chronic users often respond only to treatment programs that include serious consequences for failure."Many people that come to treatment come here because of the threat of jail, and when treatment gets hard, they stay in because of the threat of jail," said Chris Canter, director of the Walden House Foundation, which raises money to support programs at Walden House, a 31-year-old substance-abuse treatment center based in San Francisco that treats about 10,000 people statewide. He should know. Canter used to be addicted to amphetamines, or speed."I arrived at Walden House homeless with a drug problem, and the courts said you're either going to go to jail or you're going to get treatment. I said, 'OK, well you made this decision easy.' I attribute the threat of jail to coming to treatment. It was certainly a huge motivational factor," Canter said. "I remember wanting to leave the program. But then I'd think of the judge saying, 'Give me one opportunity and you're gone.' I should thank that judge. It was the best thing that ever happened to me."In Marcus' drug court, offenders receive more than a year of close supervision as they go through treatment, which includes frequent drug tests and the threat of jail if they slip up. Marcus, who holds a graduation ceremony for those who complete the program, said graduates often mentioned jail in their graduation speeches."They often say that one of the turning points was the fact that they were thrown in jail and began to think about their lives," Marcus said.Marcus opposed Proposition 36 for taking away the option of jail time in most cases, unless it can be proved that an offender is a danger to others or completely unamenable to treatment."I had two cases today in which I put people into custody," he said. "That was to shake them up because they weren't very motivated." Drug courts in California see only a small fraction of drug offenders, mostly because of lack of funding. But by all accounts, they have high success rates.In its seven years, Marcus' drug court has graduated about 500 people, he said. Most have their cases thrown out after treatment. The program is tough, he said. Only about 53 percent of those who enter his program graduate. But of those who do, only about 20 percent are rearrested for any reason.Marcus attributes the high success rate to his ability to get tough, to toss offenders in jail if they start to slide. That is an option he may well lose under Proposition 36. "The point is that you have to do things to really, really get the addicts' attention," Marcus said. "These are people who are consumed by drugs. It's extremely, extremely difficult to get off them."Downey's a prime example. Look at how talented he is. Look at what he's giving up. He needs real help, real, tough help - and I'm not sure under Prop 36, he would get it."Source: Inquirer (PA)Author: Nita Lelyveld, Inquirer Staff WriterPublished: December 26, 2000Copyright: 2000 Philadelphia Newspapers Inc.Address: 400 N. Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19101Contact: Inquirer.Letters phillynews.comWebsite: http://www.phillynews.com/inq/Forum: http://interactive.phillynews.com/talk-show/Related Articles & Web Site:California Campaign For New Drug Policyhttp://www.drugreform.org/Arizona Holds Lesson for California Drug Treatment http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8108.shtmlRobert Downey Jr. Nominated for Golden Globe http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8083.shtmlCannabisNews Articles - Robert Downey Jr.http://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=Downey 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #6 posted by dddd on December 26, 2000 at 21:07:58 PT
message
Lehder.....That was astoundingly good......Dont stop.......dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Lehder on December 26, 2000 at 20:45:42 PT
The Pursuit of Ignorance
ProemI hope that you malcontents will give warning if you ever vacation for a whole week. Because after one day's rest you are back here blasting at drug warrior ignorance with a ferocity and dead accuracy that just might win this war. You've really struck some chords with me. I would not quite compare you with The Beatles, you're not loud enough yet and some of you would need haircuts, but I know that many millions of people are thinking along similar lines. Soon they'll be singing along, and quite out of tune with our government's program.Witch HuntAs a child I once vacationed with my family in Salem, Massachussetts. Among other sights, we saw many devices of torture such as the public pillory for the treatment of drunkeness and a plethora of other infractions too trivial and bizarrely conceived to even remember now. There was the dunking chair upon which a suspect was tied and plunged into the river to determine guilt or innocence according to a ridiculous and impossible rule, something like if you come up wet you're guilty, dry you're innocent. (I forget the exact conditions, so just think of a urine test: damned if ya do, damned if ya don't.) I had a lot of trouble, in my child's mind, reconciling Salem's practices with common sense or any sense of morality, and I could come to no resolution of the contradiction there between reason and religion. I soon gave up on these difficult ruminations and contented myself as best I could with the conclusion that people were just a lot more ignorant in that bygone day, and that I, most thankfully indeed, was fortunate enough to live in a more enlightened era and would not be strapped into the dunking chair to see if I could come up dry. Most infamous of all was the witch-burning stake upon which I gazed in mute horror and real empathy for all the people of Salem - especially those who might seem a little whacky - who had to live with the constant fear of being accused of witchcraft. Just for being a little odd or curious, like me.As the kindling around the witch's feet was ignited, the executioner would offer a last chance to escape the flames. Recant, he beckoned, and be strangled rather than burned. (I guess that's a lot better, huh.) In either case, according to public officials, the victim was done a great service and would soon be in Heaven. Either the sin was burned from the victim's soul, releasing it to Heaven, or the victim recanted and was sent forthwith along the second route to Paradise. No greater gift, churchmen smiled, could be bestowed on the hapless sinner than her deliverance from a life of twisted thoughts and heresies and inevitable damnation to the better life hereafter. What a fine service! And it seems there's no end to doing right....We have today a modern coercive counterpart to Salem's "treatments" for nonconformists in that older and, I once thought, more ignorant age. What the Inquisitors called "Mercy" is what drug-law moderates call "Treatment" - compulsory "treatment"; and the drug warriors have reincarnated the now too-barbaric public burning-at-the-stake with today's Incarceration, where the brutalization of innocents and guilty alike can be secreted behind concrete walls. Let those who need and want competent, effective treatment seek it voluntarily and let's make sure it's available. The best way to make treatment competent and effective is to make it voluntary and let the great American marketplace take care of the rest. Mandatory treatment with the threat of jail only maintains an ignorant, overbearing Judge Stephen Marcus as a tormentor of people wiser and better than he. People like Carl Sagan and Robert Downey, gifts to humanity who advance civilization and enrich our souls - if they can stay out of Judge Marcus' prison.The drug warrior's world is a dull and simplistic one, one in which all problems can be solved with a slogan and a club, uncertainty resolved with Incarceration, and the key to knowledge found in "treatment". It's a world of absolute certainties, where all questions have been answered. Anyone who raises questions or seeks answers about life and the universe for himself becomes a good candidate for prison. It's a dead end world that drug warriors seek to impose on Reality, one that never advances and never changes once everyone is either a babbling DARE poster, a corrections officer or other pinhead. Drugs are Bad, Period, Shaddup. End of argument, end of civilization.I, like Carl Sagan, am interested in the Real World because, as he showed all of us, there is no more fascinating or noble pursuit than the honest inquiry into what nature has put before us. I have no interest in the drug warriors' juvenile, brutal world of slogans, pinheads and prisons. I have no interest in conforming, as the drug warriors and their ugly laws demand, to a vicious and ignorant world that I once thought had been superseded centuries ago."Grinspoon shared the joints with Sagan and his last wife, Ann Druyan. Afterward Sagan said, "Lester, I know you've only got one left, but could I have it? I've got serious work to do tomorrow and I could really use it." http://www.tfy.drugsense.org/SAGAN.HTM
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Dan Hillman on December 26, 2000 at 14:47:55 PT
Most newspapers can't give up drug war addiction
So this is from the PI, a stodgy east-coast newspaper of no consequence to Californian, right? The West coast newspapers reflected the overwhelming desire of california voters to put the brakes on the drug war, right? Wrong! Almost every newspaper in Cal., right on down to the throwaway "alternative" weeklies, beat the drum against prop 36 right up to the election. These skinny weeklies printed interview after interview from parole officer tom, to drug court judge dick, to prison guard harry! The common refrain? "We'll lose a valuable 'tool' against drug criminals." or: "The 'teeth" will be taken out of drug court. Poor us."Why can't journalists give up their addiction to sucking up to drug warriors? Because, deep in the back of their minds they think: "hey, maybe officer tom or drug court judge dick will throw a big 'BUST NETS MILLIONS' story my way and it'll make my career.  Until then, it can't hurt to put their side of the issue in print, now can it?"
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Dan B on December 26, 2000 at 09:44:40 PT:
Thanks, Observer
I appreciate your additions to Cannabis News, especially when you bring in quotations from Thomas Szasz (whom I respect and admire). Szasz is, in my opinion, one of the greatest libertarian thinkers alive today--perhaps the best. And I admire your ability to incorporate his words into your comments. You two make a great one-two combo.Dan B
Drug War Research Links
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by dddd on December 26, 2000 at 09:12:03 PT
Excellent!
Outstandingly sardonic Observer.You are extra cool...........................................dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by observer on December 26, 2000 at 08:53:38 PT
Violence Euphemized as ``Getting Tough''
 "Many people that come to treatment come here because of the threat of jail, and when treatment gets hard, they stay in because of the threat of jail," said Chris Canter, director of the Walden House Foundation, which raises money to support programs at Walden House, a 31-year-old substance-abuse treatment center based in San Francisco that treats about 10,000 people statewide. Hey: no vested interest in threatening people with jail, there. It is not that his job relies on railroading people into his little center, oh no! It is merely because of humanitarian concerns that Canter wants to see jail kept in his bag of tricks. He should know. Canter used to be addicted to amphetamines, or speed. The man buckled under to threats of jail? That's supposed to be news? "Used to be"? (We have his word on that one too, lemme guess.) "I arrived at Walden House homeless with a drug problem, and the courts said you're either going to go to jail or you're going to get treatment. I said, 'OK, well you made this decision easy.' I attribute the threat of jail to coming to treatment. It was certainly a huge motivational factor," Canter said. The methods used in the inquisition had even better "success rates". Nearly 100% of the people burned confessed to being witches (to avoid further torture). They were "motivated", also.... the threat of jail if they slip up. .... graduates often mentioned jail in their graduation speeches. Read between the lines: many of these people are saying that their main "problem" was prohibition, and that "jail" (men with guns, threats of death if jail is resisted, on top of that -- a fallacious ad baculum argument of course) was the "reasoning" behind their fleeting, false, and shallow "success".see:logical fallacies: appeal to forcehttp://www.google.com/search?q=ad+baculum+appeal+to+force "They often say that one of the turning points was the fact that they were thrown in jail and began to think about their lives," Marcus said. see:November.orghttp://www.november.orgHR95.orghttp://www.hr95.orgStop Prison Rapehttp://www/spr.org Marcus opposed Proposition 36 for taking away the option of jail time in most cases, unless it can be proved that an offender is a danger to others or completely unamenable to treatment. In other words, he likes the idea of threatening peaceful people with violence and jail, if they don't obey his will. Gotcha. "I had two cases today in which I put people into custody," he said. "That was to shake them up because they weren't very motivated." The Product Conversion -- from Heresy to IllnessThe Founding Fathers thus reasoned that if the Christian religions were "true" (as many of them believed they were), then their value (or the value of other religions) ought to become manifest to rational men (and they treated men generally as rational). Entertaining the Possibility of religious falsehood, they refused to endorse any particular faith as the only true one. In short, they held that should there be error in religion, men should be left unhampered to discover it for themselves and to act freely on their discoveries. The upshot was the uniquely American concept of religious freedom and pluralism, based on a separation of Church and State. This concept, which depends wholly on the blocking of the official guardians of religious dogma from access to the police power of the State, is embodied in the First Amendment to the Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . .Inasmuch as the ideology that now threatens individual liberties is not religious but medical, the individual needs protection not from priests but from physicians. Logic thus dictates -however much expediency and "common sense" make this seem absurd -- that the traditional constitutional protections from oppression by a State-recognized and supported Church be extended to protections from oppression by a State-recognized and supported Medicine. The justification now for a separation of Medicine and State is similar to that which obtained formerly for a separation of Church and State.As the Christian concept of sin carries with it its own deterrent of suffering in hell, so the scientific concept of disease carries with it its own deterrent of suffering on earth. Moreover, if it is true that nature rewards faithful believers in medicine (and especially those who seek prompt and properly authorized medical care for their illnesses) with a long and healthy life, is this not inducement enough to insure true belief? Why should the State use its police power to impose medical dogma on nonbelievers, when, if left alone, such heretics are sure to suffer the ravages of bodily and mental deterioration? Today, the zealous psychiatrist counters this challenge by affirming his limitless medical obligation to his "sick" brother whom it is his duty to "treat" for his dread disease. Since the madman cannot usually be cured by persuasion alone, the use of force -- justified by the lofty therapeutic goal -- is in order.Witnessing the tragic consequences of this logic translated into everyday life, we ought to emulate the wisdom and the courage of our forebears and trust men to know what is in their own best medical interests. If we truly value medical healing and refuse to confuse it with therapeutic oppression -- as they truly valued reli- gious faith and refused to confuse it with theological oppression -- then we ought to let each man seek his own medical salvation and erect an invisible but impenetrable wall separating Medicine and the State.** A new Constitutional Amendment, extending the guarantees of the First Amendment to medicine, would have to state that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of medicine, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof At this time in our history, anything even remotely resembling such a declaration would seem to be quite impossible, for Organized Medicine is now as much a part of the American government as Organized Religion had been of the government of fifteenth-century Spain. Still, a small beginning in this direction might perhaps be made.Thomas Szasz, The Manufacture of Madness, 1970, p.178http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0815604610/ 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


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