California Proposition 36 (2000)

California Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, also known as Prop 36, was an initiative statute that permanently changed state law to allow qualifying defendants convicted of non-violent drug possession offenses to receive a probationary sentence in lieu of incarceration. As a condition of probation defendants are required to participate in and complete a licensed and/or certified community drug treatment program. If the defendant fails to complete this program or violates any other term or condition of their probation, then probation can be revoked and the defendant may be required to serve an additional sentence which may include incarceration.

The proposition was passed with 5,565,672 (60.8%) votes in favour and 3,590,095 (39.2%) against on November 7, 2000 and went into effect on July 1, 2001 with $120 million for treatment services allocated annually for five years. The act is codified in sections 1210 and 3063.1 of the California Penal Code and Division 10.8 of the California Health and Safety Code.

Qualified Defendants
Not all defendants convicted of a non-violent drug possession offense are eligible for probation and treatment under Prop 36. Subdivision (b) of section 1210.1 of the California Penal Code deems the following defendants ineligible for the program:


 * 1) Any defendant who has been incarcerated within the last five years for a serious or violent felony offense.
 * 2) Any defendant convicted in the same proceeding of a non-drug related misdemeanor or felony.
 * 3) Any defendant who, during the commission of the offense, was in possession of a firearm and, at the same time, was either in possession of or under the influence of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine or phencyclidine (PCP).
 * 4) Any defendant who refuses treatment.
 * 5) Any defendant who has two separate drug related convictions, has participated in Prop 36 twice before, and who is found by the court by clear and convincing evidence to be unamenable to any and all forms of available drug treatment. In such cases the defendant shall be sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Reform
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is critical of Proposition 36 because many in the program fail to complete treatment. About 34 percent of drug offenders actually complete treatment. Schwarzenegger attempted to reform the proposition by enacting Senate Bill 1137. The bill would give judges the power to jail for a brief period drug offenders who relapsed. Proposition 36 supporters objected to the changes and an Alameda County court ordered an injunction on the reforms. So far Senate Bill 1137 has not gone into effect. If reforms are not made, the Governor plans to revise the May 2007 budget. The new budget would pass 11 percent of the Proposition 36 funding from the state to the counties.

Criticism
Prop 36 is also not retroactive, meaning that defendants who had to attend unlicensed drug rehabs prior to Prop 36 and the Drug Courts are not afforded the opportunity to have their cases reheard in court. Prop 36 and the Drug Courts have discontinued the use of unlicensed rehabs as sentencing tools due to the unethical nature of unlicensed treatment. Many drug offenders who had no option but to use unlicensed rehabs were abused in the past and became statistics in the judicial system and are unable to appeal past convictions due to the formation of the Drug Courts. Unlicensed rehabs t can be used no longer but the persons themselves are not afforded any of Prop 36's protection. A retroactive Prop 36 would bring these people under the law's umbrella. At present it does not.

And the state has been deceptive to a certain extent when defining who Prop 36's supporters are. On the state Department of Alcohol and Drug Treatment Programs (ADP) website, a link was given to the California Area Indian Health Services website, said link appearing in the "SACPA-related links" section. When the Indian Health Services office was contacted about this soon after Prop 36's passage, it stated that it was a federal agency and knew nothing about Prop 36 nor endorsed it in any manner. The Indian Health Services did not know anything about being referenced as being a supporter of Prop 36, and contacted Kurt Klemencic of the ADP and had the federal link taken down from the state site. Klemencic stated that a Martin Martinez had suggested the federal office's inclusion, but made no mention that it was, in fact, a federal office and that the inclusion was at the time when the federal government was disputing California's new lenient position on legalized marijuana quite actively.

This side of Prop 36 is not so easy for the state's citizens to see, and still causes difficulty in the judicial system.

Evaluation
The University of California, Los Angeles, which was chosen to run the required evaluation of Proposition 36, has issued three annual reports on the implementation and impact of the program since 2003. These reports provide data and analysis that help state legislators determine the future of the program each year.

A UCLA study released in April 2006 showed Proposition 36 is saving taxpayers $2.50 for every $1 invested. According to the Drug Policy Alliance, total savings for taxpayers over the past five years total $1.4 billion. Another UCLA study found that convicted drug users had become more likely to be arrested on new drug charges since the proposition took effect .