Proposition 36 proposes to roll back on Proposition 47. This week, the LA Times Editorial Board came out against the measure, arguing “California shouldn’t revive the disastrous war on drugs.” On the other hand, the Santa Cruz Sentinel endorsed the measure, calling it “a Smart Response to Drug Deaths, Thefts and Homelessness.”
Some highlights from the Yes side:
“Proposition 36 provides a tempered answer that voters should back on the Nov. 5 ballot. It’s a much-needed adjustment of Proposition 47, the well-intentioned criminal justice reform measure state voters passed in 2014.
“But contrary to critics’ claims, this is not a reactionary return to the days of mass incarceration. While Prop. 36 would increase punishments for some theft and drug crimes, it would also create incentives for addicts to seek drug treatment.
“We support the goals of lowering the state prison population and reducing recidivism. But societal problems have worsened since Prop. 47’s passage.”
“The state’s retail theft rate has surged since 2021 and is now higher than when Prop. 47 passed, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. Shoplifting is at its highest level since 2000. These parallel trends are not surprising given that homelessness is highly correlated to mental health problems and drug addiction, often leading to theft to support a habit. Unfortunately, Prop. 47 made it harder to force addicts to seek treatment.
“Without the threat of felony punishment, judges lost leverage to convince addicts who are serial offenders to complete mental health and drug treatment programs in exchange for dismissal of the charges.”
Some highlights from the Opposition:
- The problems the measure claims to address — retail theft, drug abuse and homelessness — are unrelated to Proposition 47, despite what proponents say. Proposition 36 would not have stopped them.
- People who fail to complete drug treatment would go to jail under Proposition 36, but the state’s jails are overcrowded and that space is needed for violent and dangerous criminals.
- Current law gives police the tools to stop petty thieves through misdemeanor arrests, but officers say it’s not worth their time.
The Times notes: “The problems the measure claims to address — retail theft, drug abuse and homelessness — are to some degree intertwined. But despite proponents’ claims, they are unrelated to Proposition 47, a smart 2014 criminal justice reform measure that brought California’s theft law in line with other states and made drug possession for personal use a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail.
“Proposition 47 had nothing to do with these crimes, and Proposition 36 would not have stopped them. That’s because robbery, residential burglary and grand theft are already felonies, punishable with long prison sentences. The law as it exists is appropriate to deal with those crimes — whenever law enforcement is ready to use it.
“As for repeat drug offenders, Proposition 36 would create a “treatment-mandated felony” on a third possession charge, meaning the accused would have to complete court-supervised drug treatment or be sentenced to a multiyear jail or prison term.”
The Times concludes: “California does have a serious property crime problem, including auto theft and burglaries, and it has recently begun to deal with it using the ample tools currently provided under state law. We do have a serious drug problem that requires a thoughtful response and enormous resources. Proposition 36 pretends the task can be accomplished on the cheap. It can’t. It’s more illusion than solution.”
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the writers and do not reflect those of The Vanguard or its Editorial Staff. The Vanguard does not endorse political candidates and is committed to publishing all public opinions and maintaining an open forum subject to guidelines related to decency and tone, not content.
