Thirty-one year old Tammy has been a drug addict for most of her life. None of her five children live with her anymore because of the drugs. Two live with their fathers. Two are in foster care, and the youngest has been adopted.
Forty-eight year old Alan has been an addict for more than 30 years. Because of drugs and alcohol, he’s lost his wife, his house, and his six figure salary as an engineer.
Their lives would forever change after being arrested on charges of drug possession. They were given the choice of undergoing treatment or spending time in prison. Both chose treatment.
Tammy and Alan are just two of an average of two hundred thousand California residents arrested each year for drug possession. They were able to choose treatment in lieu of incarceration thanks to Proposition 36.
In November 2001, 61% of California voters passed Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (SACPA), an initiative aimed at rehabilitating rather than incarcerating non-violent drug possession offenders.
Prior to its passage, the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office predicted that by treating rather than incarcerating low-level drug offenders, SACPA would save California taxpayers approximately $1.5 billion over the next five years and prevent the need for a new prison.
But has Prop 36 actually worked? Is is saving us money and saving lives in the process? According to the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, an estimated 12,000 people were placed in treatment during the first six months of Prop 36. The first progress report on the effectiveness and the savings from Prop. 36 will be available in July. This week “California Connected” examines the law’s impact on real people struggling with very real—and all too common—problems.