Proposition 5 will save billions, promote rehab and cut prison time.
Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act, is an initiative that would change California drug policy to take pressure off of the overburdened California prison system.
Proposition 5 takes a realistic approach to illegal substances, looking to help treat nonviolent drug users instead of punishing them, and will yield huge savings for California.
More attention has been given to other propositions, but only Proposition 8 will have the same level of political impact as Proposition 5.
The proposition has the potential to change the way the legal system handles drug offenders and could get us closer to a reasonable drug policy that is focused on rehabilitation instead of punishment.
But Proposition 5 is not a simple issue, and while it provides some reasonable solutions, it may prove too complex and maybe too progressive for people to see why the good outweighs the bad, and why the bad isn’t all that bad at all.
In effect, NORA reduces the consequences for nonviolent drug offenders and exchanges prison time with treatment and rehabilitation. Not only is rehab much more effective for helping drug users, but it is exceedingly more cost-efficient.
The best proof that this is an effective strategy is the success of Proposition 36, which California voters passed in 2000. Proposition 36 was also focused on offering drug treatment to nonviolent offenders.
As of April 2007, according to an article on the Proposition 36 Web site, studies done by our own UCLA researchers showed that the policies put up by Proposition 36 have graduated more than 60,000 patients and saved California taxpayers more than $1 billion in five years.
But for all the good Proposition 36 has done, it has not been enough. According to a federally backed UC Irvine study, the state’s corrections costs currently account for 10 percent of state spending, equal to that spent on education. The $1 billion saved by Proposition 36 has without a doubt been very beneficial, and Proposition 5 is going to do even better.
Financially, Proposition 5 is the most attractive measure on the ballot, because it is the only initiative that has a fiscal impact that is listed as a net positive. The fiscal impact listed on the ballot under Proposition 5 balances out to be a net savings of more than $2.5 billion.
Among the specific changes, NORA would create shorter parole periods for most nonviolent drug offenses and would change some charges of marijuana possession from misdemeanors to infractions. This change would make certain charges go from jail time to no more than a $100 fine, making it comparable to that of a speeding ticket.
This is a change that is progressive, smart and beneficial. Only marijuana-related offenses are getting this kind of reduction. Policy on marijuana possession is too strict as it is, and so far such strict prohibition has proven to do nothing but add to the overcrowding in our prison and parole systems.
Marijuana is nowhere near as harmful or addictive as drugs such as heroin, cocaine or methamphetamines and is not even as addictive as tobacco, alcohol or caffeine. It’s time to recognize that lumping marijuana with the stigma that comes with hard drugs is incorrect.
This reduction of charges for marijuana seems to be the most progressive move the initiative makes. The opponents of Proposition 5 want to make this proposition seem like some sort of slippery slope, but it is not.
Violent offenders are not eligible for treatment without incarceration, and they would in fact be given increased parole time under NORA. Drug dealers do not get preferred treatment, because no policies are rewritten in respect to dealers.
Proposition 5 does not give any sort of “get out of jail free” card to criminal drug abusers; rather it expands on successful programs that continue treatment for patients who have potential and continues to punish those who fail to meet the requirements of their treatment or probation.
Proposition 5 is easier on nonviolent drug offenders. The idea might seem backward, but it’s a more reasonable solution to a problem that will never completely go away. It’s a tough truth to face, but addictive substances such as cocaine, meth and heroin will never be completely taken off the streets. However, this does not mean California should accept defeat and endure their sale.
Proposition 5 would bring us closer to a realistic solution that focuses on changing people with treatment instead of undercutting them with prison time.
Proposition 5 will save money and help support better lives, but only if California is ready to take yet another progressive baby step toward rational solutions.
E-mail Stoll at rstoll@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.