If you think it's preposterous to jail people for simply using drugs, you've always had a solid principle to stand on. Now data are pouring in to prove that treating drug abuse as a public health issue saves lives and money -- big time -- with little risk to public safety.
Recent days have brought a deluge of positive data on California's Proposition 36, a ballot initiative approved by 61 percent of voters in November 2000. The measure requires people convicted of simple drug possession to get probation and state-funded drug treatment programs, not incarceration. People can't be jailed unless they refuse treatment, fail to show up, commit a new crime or wash out after multiple program violations.
So how are we doing with this new policy? UCLA researchers compared the first two years of experience with Prop. 36 with two sample years before. They found that far fewer people were being incarcerated for drug offenses, and that the state had saved $2.50 for every dollar put into the program.
These savings were calculated in hard dollars - actual savings to government with real individuals - a major strength of the study. Savings were even higher for people who completed their treatment: $4 for every $1. The program saved $173.3 million in the first year alone, a mighty peace dividend after years of drug wars.
This means Prop. 36 has saved state and local governments at least $800 million, as this New York Times editorial notes -- and that's after California spent $660 million on drug treatment programs. Add in the savings from prison construction that has been avoided, at least $500 million, and the program is on track to save more than $1.3 billion.
These savings are, in part, a reflection of just how badly California was coping with addiction before Prop. 36. As a report by the Drug Policy Alliance shows, for a dozen years before Prop. 36, the number of people imprisoned for drug possession rose every year, quadrupling from 5,000 to over 20,000. That's pretty good evidence that, notwithstanding its liberal reputation, California had answered George H.W. Bush's call for an all-out war on drugs. (Yes, that war was launched with brazen deception, too.)
Reversing course has meant restoring lives. In just five years, 60,000 people will graduate from Prop. 36 treatment. One was Robert Downey Jr., a poster boy for the ravages of addiction until he got into Prop. 36 and completed treatment. Another was Tammy Bardwell, not a household name, a woman who used drugs 25 years before getting clean through Prop. 36. Chances are you're not far removed from one of the other 59,998 success stories.
As expected, drug-related incarceration has dropped dramatically, becoming the principal source of savings from Prop. 36. The Justice Policy Institute's new report compares five-year trends in California to the rest of the nation, showing how quickly the voter initiative emptied prisons and jails of drug users while boosting treatment enrollment. No other state made similar progress on either front. New York state had 329 fewer people in prison for drug possession in 2005 than in 2000; California had 5,400 fewer. The number of people in drug treatment grew by 34 percent in California, while that figure grew just four percent in the rest of the nation.
Importantly, JPI points out that violent crime fell more quickly in California during this period than the national average. And UCLA researchers have noted that Prop. 36 participants who are rearrested are almost exclusively busted for drug use, not more serious crimes. These findings related to public safety have prompted rethinking by some who opposed Prop. 36, like the Contra Costa Times, which now says, "we were among those who thought it might cause a crime wave. It appears that position was wrong."
The Orange County Register says Prop. 36 has proved to be "a bargain compared to building more jails for addicts." Yet it's unclear how much money the program will get to continue building on its successes. Funding mandated by the initiative ends June 30. One survey of treatment administrators says the program needs $210 million, but that's $90 million more than has been proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. As supporters will argue at a Sacramento rally this week, starving the program could be as harmful and short-sighted as eliminating it.