Proponents of Proposition 36 call it the “Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act,” yet it will create no new homes, no shelters and no treatment programs. It should have been called the “More Money for Prisons, Less Money for Schools and Drug Treatment Act.”
That’s because the proposition, if enacted this November, will send people with drug problems to prison or jail rather than treatment, increasing jail and prison costs by hundreds of millions of dollars a year at a time when the state already has a significant budget deficit.
The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that Prop. 36 will strip about $100 million annually from substance abuse treatment and reentry programs. And because the measure includes no new revenue or mechanisms to pay for these added costs, it will likely force California to slash funding for our schools, health care and other vital programs.
Opinion
Prop. 36 represents a giant step backward. Voters should reject it.
For decades, California and the rest of the nation tried to solve the problem of drug addiction by locking people up. But not only did the War on Drugs fail to reduce drug addiction, it led to the inhumane overcrowding of California prisons, forcing the federal government to step in.
The War on Drugs also disproportionately harmed Black and brown people, devastating entire generations of vulnerable youth.
California and other states learned from that mistake. The two of us have spent much of our careers helping our state forge a more humane and effective path. Instead of locking people up, we’ve pushed for and helped implement effective drug treatment programs and reentry services so that people returning from prison can get the help and support they need to overcome addiction and lead productive lives.
Californians were smart to enact Prop. 47 a decade ago, which reduced drug possession from a felony to a misdemeanor, steering people with substance abuse problems away from prisons and into treatment. Prison cost savings from Prop. 47 provided nearly $100 million a year to fund mental health and drug treatment, school truancy and dropout prevention and victim services.
As a result of Prop. 47 and other reforms, California’s prisons are no longer overcrowded. The state’s recidivism rate, which represents the percentage of people released from prison who re-offend, has also steadily declined .
Prop. 36’s proponents say the threat of jail or prison will ensure people with substance abuse problems complete a drug treatment program, but there is major flaw in that argument: California’s substance abuse programs are already oversubscribed . Prop. 36 will make matters worse by taking away money that could be used to expand these programs.
In other words, under Prop. 36, California will once again imprison people with drug problems. It’s a return to the failed War on Drugs.
Prop. 36 was falsely sold as a solution to the viral videos of organized retail theft we all watched during the pandemic. But the truth is, despite an uptick in crime during the pandemic years, retail theft — like nearly every other category of crime — is going down again .
Despite this evidence, Prop. 36 seeks to return to the era of mass incarceration by making some minor retail theft crimes felonies.
There is no evidence that harsher criminal penalties will further reduce retail theft. In fact, large retailers told legislators that the retail theft laws signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom this year will do far more to address retail theft than Prop. 36. It’s also why the coalition behind the pro-Prop. 36 campaign is unraveling .
Prop. 36 won’t address retail theft or drug addiction, and it will do nothing about homelessness. It’s just a return to the failed policies of the past.
We can’t afford to go back.
Brendon Woods is Alameda County’s Chief Public Defender. State Sen. Nancy Skinner has served in the state Legislature for 14 years.
Local News
