Drug reform: two steps forward . . .

One of the more disappointing aspects of election night in California was the defeat of Proposition 5, the incarceration reform measure put together by the Drug Policy Alliance, which would have offered treatment instead of incarceration to most non-violent drug offenders and according to the nonpartisan legislative analyst saved the state $2.5 billion in prison construction costs. The prison guards union donated $1 million to defeating it.

It was especially disappointing since, on the same night, Michigan passed a medical marijuana initiative and Massachusetts passed what was essentially decriminalization of marijuana -- a $100 fine and no criminal record for simple possession of an ounce or less. (Here's a link to the Register's editorial on various state initiatives across the country.) The sentiment for drug law reform is out there, but we couldn't get it done in California (the Register was the only major newspaper to endorse Prop. 5).

Tuesday night's results make me wonder if working for simple decriminalization might be a more productive path. Prop. 5 was carefully, almost exquisitely crafted, with carefully balanced criteria for which offenders would be eligible for treatment. But it would have earmarked money fro treatment programs and it was long and fairly complex. It's not unusual for voters simply to vote No on propositions they don't quite understand, especially if some valid-sounding doubts have been raised (Dianne Feinstein did commercial against it). But the Massachusetts result suggests that voters might be ready for simple decriminalization, at least of marijuana. That would ease a host of law-induced social problems.

Prison guards, beer distributors and casinos opposing California's Prop. 5

I posted the following today at the Register's Orange Punch blog:

Talked to Ethan Nadelman, head of the Drug Policy Alliance, today, about Prop. 5, which would replace incarceration with treatment for most nonviolent drug offenders. He noted that almost none of the news stories mention that the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that it would save taxpayers around $2.5 billion over time in the cost of prisons that don’t need to be built, or even that the LAO estimates that the costs of setting up better treatment programs would be offset by the reduction of costs associated with prisons (which is presumably why the prison guards union has donated a million bucks to the No campaign). In fact, the best I can figure it, Prop. 5 is the only proposition on the ballot that the LAO estimates would actually save taxpayers money at a time when the state is in a deep fiscal crisis.

He also noted that beer distributors have donated around $100,000 to the No campaign and various Indian casinos have kicked in around a quarter million. The keepers of the legalized vices apparently have a profound special interest in making sure nonviolent drug offenders go to jail.

Some more interesting comments from Alex Coolman's Drug Law Blog, and another couple here and here.

Drug use: a more humane approach

Here is the Register's editorial on Proposition 5 on the California ballot, which would build on the success of Prop. 36 (passed in 2000) that mandated more treatment and less incarceration for non-violent drug users. It's another proposal from the Drug Policy Alliance, the most constructive thing billionaire George Soros does with his money.

The Register endorsed this proposal, but I actually have mixed feelings. It would certainly be less inhumane for the state govt. to offer treatment rather than incarceration to drug users, but it reinforces the impression that any use of "illicit" drugs is a problem requiring treatment. Sometimes, especially with (most) marijuana use, it is simply harmless and doesn't require expensive treatment, but the government simply getting out of the way and allowing adults to be treated like adults who can take responsibility for their own actions. I'm inclined to think most meth use is harmful to the person doing it, and cocaine and heroin can cause damage to the user. Whether treatment, especially tax-funded treatment, is the proper approach is not necessarily obvious.

Still, little steps away from criminalization may be the best we can get for now. But total decriminalization is the proper goal.