RAMIFICATIONS OF PASSING DRUG OFFENDER PROPOSITION

ANYONE INTERESTED in drug crimes should perk up this November, since
Proposition 36 will be on the ballot proposing to do away with Jail times
for non-violent drug offenders.

The new law would instead set up these law breakers with rehabilitation on
programs. What those rehab programs would consist of still appears to be
vague, but be certain, government-paid for facilities and personnel would
indeed be part of the concept.

As written, this law seems to ignore existing rehab efforts for the state's
criminal drug offenders and creates yet another bureaucracy, neither of
which sound like a good thing.

One supporter of Prop. 36 is Elizabeth Gheleta, the executive director of
the Service League of San Mateo County.

This agency already provides rehabilitation services for more than 10,000
in the county, and it seems likely that this office would benefit from the
millions that would fund Prop. 36.

Gheleta is quick to focus on the savings to the penal system and to applaud
the rehab efforts for drug offenders, but she seems to ignore the expenses,
both in terms of real estate and personnel. This is required to set up an
effective, reliable measurable rehabilitation system for the state's rate's
25,000 criminal drug offenders.

Consider a few ramifications that this law would bring to the county: The
astronomically high cost of property in the county would make finding sites
for new rehab facilities daunting; bringing in a crop of well trained,
competent, therapists to handle all those drug offenders would add to the
housing shortage and traffic congestion problems the county already
struggles with; suburbanites consistently cry out "not in my back yard," as
happened over the recent methadone treatment clinic site for the county
earlier this spring.

Just where and how are all those offenders going to get this 'treatment'?

Supporters of Prop. 36 ignore that at a system of treatment and assessment
for drug offenders is already in place.Judges have the ability, and
responsible to look at an offender's entire history story, their criminal
record, their community and family support systems, and so on.

Plus, our system of government is working fairly well with its built-in
system of checks and balances, which a is exactly what happens when defense
attorneys and prosecuting attorneys negotiate treatment, jail time, type of
treatment, probation and refferals when drug offenders appear in court.
Court supervision, direction and evaluation would be removed if this
proposition passes.

Gheleta avoids the fact that judges already assign rehab treatments for
drug offenders which become part and parcel of an offender's sentencing,
and consequently become accountable to the system if treatment lapses or is
ignored

While the expense of drug offenders in our jails may seem costly, think how
wasteful it would be to throw hundreds of millions at a new system that
removes drug offenders from the grasp and supervision of both our current
penal and law enforcement system.

State penal codes and legal sentencing options already make allowances for
the truly 'safe-to-society' non-violent drug offender, but this law would
clump all non-violent drug offenders into one warm and fuzzy group and
remove them from the consequences and enforcements of the legal system) .

Are the risks of this new system worth even one news story about a
non-incarcerated drug addict under the influence killing an innocent family
in a tragic traffic accident?

Removing drug offenders from our legal system - non-violent or not - is not
something this state, or this county, is prepared to deal with.