cannabisnews.com: Prop. 36 Drug Treatment Needs Assessment










  Prop. 36 Drug Treatment Needs Assessment

Posted by FoM on April 17, 2001 at 10:26:11 PT
Bee Editorial 
Source: Sacramento Bee 

Voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 36 last year, mandating treatment instead of incarceration for low-level nonviolent drug offenders. The measure provides $660 million for drug treatment over the next five years, but it explicitly and mistakenly bars the use of any treatment money for drug testing. Sen. John Burton's SB 223 would correct that mistake. It would appropriate $18 million to test drug offenders sentenced to treatment under the measure.
At minimum, testing is necessary to determine whether public money is being wasted. It is a crucial tool that officials need to assess which treatment programs work best, or at all, for which kinds of addiction or offender. Armed with testing results, individual drug offenders who sincerely want to break their addictions can be steered into the most effective programs.Under the provisions of Proposition 36, those who successfully complete drug treatment can appeal to judges to have their convictions expunged from their records. Probation officers, who must make recommendations to judges on such appeals, complain they have no way of knowing which offenders have succeeded in treatment if there is no testing.There's not much time left. Beginning July 1, just 2 1/2 months from now, Proposition 36 goes into full effect. By that date, judges must begin sentencing minor drug offenders to probation and treatment. Only a handful of counties, among them Sacramento and Yolo locally, have completed written implementation plans. Sacramento has already approved the expansion of three out-patient drug treatment programs. It has also asked providers to submit proposals for new residential programs.County officials are eager to take advantage of the opportunity Proposition 36 offers to fight the scourge of drug addiction in a different way. The drug testing funds in SB 223 would give them the tools they need to fight effectively.Complete Title: Testing, Testing, Testing: Prop. 36 Drug Treatment Needs AssessmentSource: Sacramento Bee (CA)Published: April 17, 2001Copyright: 2001 The Sacramento BeeContact: opinion sacbee.comWebsite: http://www.sacbee.com/Related Article:Prop. 36 Wins Big Despite Politicoshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7599.shtmlCannabisNews Drug Testing Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/drug_testing.shtml

END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help





Comment #13 posted by lookinside on April 17, 2001 at 18:52:41 PT:
sanity?
just emailed a short letter to the bee...i doubt they willprint it...it mainly dealt with my opinions concerning drugtesting(ineffective) privately owned drug diversion andaddiction recovery programs(purposely ineffective) and awillingness to recover(very effective)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by observer on April 17, 2001 at 14:58:42 PT
re: bleaters and screechers
bleaters and screechersNice way to start out ... insult people.As a recovering drug addict,In other words, of the majority of people who have tried drugs, you're in the minority that screwed up and got addicted. Oh oh .. but wait! You "in recovery." (I.e you can mouth the official party line, you can cry on cue, you can blame your "addiction" on what or whomever. You can praise the government. Etc.) So now you're the "expert." Sorry, hon: that only flies when you have a captive audience, like one of your government forced- group "therapy" sessions where people have to go along with the pary line, or go to prison. I can recognize the druggie bleat when anyone threatens to get between a druggie More insults ... just can't get out a sentence that expresses disagreement, without name-calling, eh? Again, I guess that wors for you in group "therapy", so you figured it would work here, too. Wrong.and their drug use.Prohibitionist Propaganda Theme # 4:4. The concept of "controlled" usage is destroyed and replaced by a "domino theory" of chemical progression. . . . In general this strategy equates the use and abuse of drugs and implies that it is impossible to use the particular drug or drugs in question without physical, mental, and moral deterioration. Such a view holds that there are powers within the drug over which no one can exert control. The extreme absurdity of such a view seems apparent when one considers the vast majority of persons who use alcohol in this country with minimal or no dysfunctional consequences and the numbers of users of illicit drugs who do not suffer physical deterioration, who do not progress to compulsive drug usage, who do continue to work, raise children, and maintain the usually expected social responsibilities.Themes in Chemical Prohibition, NIDA, 1979http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/ticp.html Get over it. If people pay real money for someone elses treatment, they don't won't to pay to enable people The ones who will have to "get over it" are the ones who want to change the terms of Prop. 36, after the fact. The testing stipulations were put into Prop 36 for a reason: to prevent the jailers and treatment racket from using marijuana tests to circumvent the intent of the law, and jail people anyway.. . .to keep their blood stream poluted with toxins. I maintain that drug abuse and the War on Drugs are both transitory modes -- pretexts for scapegoating deviants and strengthening the state. Our official understanding of the drug problem rests on a fallacious scapegoat-type imagery and a correspondingly erroneous approach to remedying it. For example, we conceptualize self-medication -- say, with marijuana -- as self-poisoning rather than as self-pleasuring, and then rely on this image of the drug as poison to justify using state power to punish people who possess marijuana. Although in his important study, The Scapegoat, René Cirard does not refer to drugs as scapegoats, he remarks -- apropos of our scientific progress from the Middle Ages to the present -- that "frequent references to poisons" has remained a constant feature of the imagery and rhetoric of scapegoating. "Chemistry," he concludes, "takes over from purely demoniac influence."13 The chemistry that takes over, I would add, is not pharmacological chemistry, but ceremonial chemistry.Thomas Szasz, Our Right To Drugs, 1992, pp.62-63http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0815603339 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Juan Costo on April 17, 2001 at 14:38:41 PT
True Story
At a harm reduction conference I asked an ex-con/peer educator if drug testing encouraged the use of hard drugs in prison. He told me that it was possible to get any type of drug in prison, but hard drugs were preferred because: the detection time was negigible; there was no smell to give away use; they are much easier to smuggle/conceal. I find it hard to believe that there is still so much ignorance surrounding drug testing. I'm beginning to suspect that hate is the driving force behind the drug war, specifically hate of the counterculture and all it represents: free love, feminism, gay rights, racial justice, etc. Oh yeah, and marijuana. 
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #10 posted by FoM on April 17, 2001 at 14:30:20 PT

Drug Testing
I just want to say that I was addicted to prescription drugs and alcohol and drug testing wouldn't have changed my ways. I made up my mind to quit and went through hell but I made it and that was in 94 and I don't have any problems now. Drug testing would have only angered me. That's my own opinion and isn't for everyone I'm sure.
FreedomToExhale
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #9 posted by aocp on April 17, 2001 at 14:15:46 PT

Re: Robbie
Ouch! Scathing and i love it!:Also, the "writer" doesn't say much about whether probationers truly care that their charges are recovering from addiction problems, or that they are simply drug-free.Therein lies one of the biggest problems with prohibition: any use of the banned substance is counted as abuse. Since any use is further dictated as contributing to all the problems of the drug war, drug free = recovering from addiction problems. Sick, really.Which brings me to this point from frances:Get over it. If people pay real money for someone elses treatment, they don't won't to pay to enable people to keep their blood stream poluted with toxins.It's a stacked deck. Drug testing doesn't tell jack on the outside of the clinic and it means the same inside. *see above*
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #8 posted by Sledhead on April 17, 2001 at 13:56:51 PT

Bleating
Ex=addicts are like ex-tobacco smokers, they couldn't control their own behavior, so everyone must suffer the consequences.Weak, weak, weak....Take responsibility for your own excesses & quit whining.Not everyone is a problem, just the few who whine the loudest.Another "victim" in America, just what we need.I'm personally sick of these "victims" of their own actions.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #7 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on April 17, 2001 at 13:48:43 PT:

Dear Frances
While you are welcome to your opinion, let us face facts. Drug testing is an expensive farce, a waste of money, and really only effective at identifying one agent: cannabis. That particular "drug" is not addictive either at all, or barely so compared to even conventional accepted substances such caffeine. Many people need cannabis for medicine. Should they be hounded by the law and incarcerated for that?For more info on testing and its pitfalls, please see:http://www.aclu.org/issues/worker/summdrugtesting1999.html
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by frances on April 17, 2001 at 13:15:24 PT:

bleaters and screechers
As a recovering drug addict, I can recognize the druggie bleat when anyone threatens to get between a druggie and their drug use.Get over it. If people pay real money for someone elses treatment, they don't won't to pay to enable people to keep their blood stream poluted with toxins. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by Robbie on April 17, 2001 at 12:48:58 PT

Outrage
This cannot stand. I know already that the Bee and it's affiliated newspapers are conservative on drug issues, but the misdirection and malfeasant fact-twisting here are shameful....it explicitly and mistakenly bars the use of any treatment money for drug testing. Sen. John Burton's SB 223 would correct that mistake.There is no mistake. Voters in the state approved Prop. 36 by a resounding 61%. Unless the Dishon. Mr. Burton wishes to submit his amendment before the voters, he should not be able to change anything.It would appropriate $18 million to test drug offenders sentenced to treatment under the measure.So now you're saying that the taxpayers should foot the bill for a procedure which only mollifies the police and probationers. While drug-testing could certainly help those who may have denial problems, it is not for the State to presume guilt. If a "drug-offender" wishes to be tested, he should be able to get a test. Let's pay for those with monies seized through asset forfeiture.At minimum, testing is necessary to determine whether public money is being wasted.If we double the number of state prisoners and put them through in/out-patient treatment in a year, the state would pay about one-fifth of the cost of keeping the current number of state "drug offenders" in a cell. Who is it wasting money again?It is a crucial tool that officials need to assess which treatment programs work best, or at all...This "writer" presupposes that the majority of those who go through treatment are simply incapable of kicking their habits. What a lovely opinion this "writer" must have of everyone in general.Armed with testing results, individual drug offenders who sincerely want to break their addictions can be steered into the most effective programs.And just exactly why should treatment programs be any different at all. Are there some "drug offenders" more worthy than others? Are you saying that a "clean" vial of urine should be worn like a badge of honor, so that Big Brother can be satisfied that the unwashed proletariat is towing their line?Probation officers, who must make recommendations to judges on such appeals, complain they have no way of knowing which offenders have succeeded in treatment if there is no testing.So probationers are (1) incapable of doing their jobs, and (2) unable to trust any of their parolees. Also, the "writer" doesn't say much about whether probationers truly care that their charges are recovering from addiction problems, or that they are simply drug-free.There's not much time left...for people like you.County officials are eager to take advantage of the opportunity Proposition 36 offers to fight the scourge of drug addiction in a different way.That's bullshit! (sorry FoM) County officials, probationers, police, judges, and people like this "writer" have been dragged kicking and screaming into the cold hard reality that they aren't carrying the day with their "harm-inducement/job security" social strategies. The fact is, running "drug offenders" through the system is easier for all the local officials involved and a paycheck to all the LEO's.Complete Title: Testing, Testing, Testing: Prop. 36 Drug Treatment Needs AssessmentThis "writer" needs assessment. I'll personally fit him for the ball and chain after his "war"-crimes tribunal.
Did I really say `malfeasant'?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by Charlie on April 17, 2001 at 12:33:53 PT

I wonder...
What pharmeceutical company (manufacturer of drug tests) contributed to Burton's election campaign?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by The GCW on April 17, 2001 at 12:11:56 PT

He can be replaced.
Society must replace him in order to remain rational. Think of it as a cleansing process.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by meagain on April 17, 2001 at 11:59:25 PT

What mistake???
Voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 36 last year, mandating treatment instead of   incarceration for low-level nonviolent drug offenders. The measure provides $660 million for drug   treatment over the next five years, but it explicitly and mistakenly bars the use of any treatment   money for drug testing. Sen. John Burton's SB 223 would correct that mistake.Did it ever occur that it wasn't a mistake.It wasn't broke so don't fix itRecall is the word.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by Alaric on April 17, 2001 at 11:04:32 PT

more recall elections needed
The measure provides $660 million for drug treatment over the next five years, but it explicitly and mistakenly bars the use of any treatment money for drug testing. Sen. John Burton's SB 223 would correct that mistake.And a recall election will correct Burton's subversion of the people's will.
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment





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

Link URL: 
Link Title: