Vanguard Sacramento Bureau Chief
SACRAMENTO, CA – If Prop. 36 is approved by California voters in November, Gov. Gavin Newsom argues it will not lead to more treatment for thieves and drug users, according to an Associated Press story last week.
The ballot proposition, if passed, would allow those “caught stealing three times to be charged with felonies, regardless of what they stole and how much it cost. It would do the same for drug possession charges and would increase jail time for repeat and organized retail theft,” AP wrote.
Local district attorneys, under the measure, could charge people convicted of possessing or selling drugs at least twice with “treatment-mandated felonies,” and after conviction, the accused would have to complete drug or mental health treatment, or serve three years in state prison.
Although, AP noted, “The measure does not contain funding for that treatment.”
Although supporters of Prop. 36 insist the measure will increase jail time for accused, it will lead to more help for them, ushering in “an era of ‘mass treatment.’”
AP wrote, “That treatment messaging has been pushed particularly by moderate Democrats who support the measure. The initiative, initially spearheaded by Republicans, has divided the Democratic Party, with some moderate Democratic mayors backing it while top state leaders like Newsom oppose it.”
“This effort is about saving lives,” maintains Elk Grove Mayor Bobbie Singh-Allen, adding, said AP, “Prop 36 means treatment for those who steal. It means diversion and proven programs to get people on the right track.”
“Some have argued that this would return us to an era of mass incarceration,” San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, one of the mayors backing the measure, told the SF Chronicle last month. “But I believe it gives us an opportunity to enter an era of mass treatment.”
Newsom called their arguments “specious.”
“It’s about mass incarceration, not mass treatment,” Newsom said, according to AP, adding, “What an actual insult it is to say it’s about mass treatment when there’s not a dollar attached to it.”
The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, explained AP, determined Prop. 36 will, “reduce the amount California spends on mental health and drug treatment, school truancy and dropout prevention, and victim services” by tens of millions of dollars each year.
“That’s because Prop 36 would roll back parts of Prop 47, a ballot measure passed in 2014 that reduced punishments for drug possession and theft of property worth less than $950 to misdemeanors. Prop 47 required the money saved by keeping people out of prison for those crimes fund rehabilitation and treatment programs aimed at keeping people from committing crimes in the first place,” AP reports.
“If Prop 36 passes, it would cut into those savings by putting more people in prison. That means there would be less money available for those treatment and rehabilitation programs,” said the AP story.
“Supporters of the measure acknowledge it would drive up costs to the state but argue California needs to crack down on drug possession and retail theft. Some have pointed to Prop 1, an initiative championed by Newsom and passed by voters earlier this year, as a potential funding source for some of the treatment they want.
“That measure authorized $6.38 billion in bond money to build mental illness treatment facilities and diverted some existing mental health tax revenue to addiction treatment and housing,” the Associated Press writes.
Newsom, AP adds, claims that Prop. 1 could fund the treatment called for in Prop. 36 [and I] “don’t know what they’re talking about,” and added “most counties have refused to implement a recent law expanding who is eligible for conservatorship because they say they don’t have enough addiction treatment facilities and staff.”
