Hello, it’s a fun Thursday. There are 25 days until the election, but today we’re taking a break from covering the national turmoil to talk a little about the turmoil in California.

So, depending on who you ask, Prop. 36 either provides addiction treatment, provides no addiction treatment, stops retail theft, cracks down on drug traffickers, and protects black and white people. The idea is to return to the era of “three strikes” where people were imprisoned. Target will turn people’s skin brown faster than toothpaste, possibly even costing taxpayers millions of dollars. or not.

Like many proposed California laws, Proposition 36 is poorly detailed, so it’s very unclear how it will play out if passed.

Officially, Proposition 36 is called the “Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act,” and it would, among other things, force some offenders into treatment through a new type of crime called “mandated-to-treat” felonies. We are trying to address all three of these issues. Either successfully complete the addiction program or face incarceration.

I vote “no” on Proposition 36. From its most basic starting point, this proposal lumps together three emotional problems – crime, homelessness, and addiction – to make it seem as if all homeless people are addicted to thieves. I think so. That’s simply not true.

But the strange and whimsical place that is our state capitol sometimes inevitably makes for strange bed buddies. Let’s take a look at how these issues came together.

A fairy tale of a failed society

Once upon a time in California, people started stealing a lot from stores because of the pandemic, poverty, fentanyl, housing prices, and general social stagnation. It was sometimes done in an organized manner. The store was furious and locked everything up.

That left shoppers furious. Who wants to press a button and wait to buy deodorant? On top of that, there were homeless people everywhere, so we were already pissed off, but we’re not terrible people, so we’re not going to complain about that. But there were homeless people doing drugs everywhere, and some of them looked a little scary.

We were fed up because we paid billions of dollars to the government to fix these problems and nothing seemed to work. The governor picked up the trash himself, wearing his third-best sweatshirt, but there was still plenty of trash. And drugs! And people who make trash and use drugs.

And don’t forget about stealing. The store owners went to their friends in Congress and gave them the information. a lot He stole large sums of money over the years and sought help with a harsher sentence to stop the grand theft. However, there was some theft, which was a nuisance. even if the data is not backed up They claim to be financially ruined. But their so-called friends didn’t act fast enough.

So the shopkeepers found another friend.

they went to the prosecutor’s office california district attorney’s officethey were also fed up. Prosecutors were tired of seeing the same people appear in court again and again with little result.

This is actually a legitimate complaint. Some people who use drugs and are homeless or poor (remember, wealthy people use drugs too, but are not as much of a nuisance to society) are deeply addicted to it. Some people are so depressed that stealing becomes a way of life if they want to continue buying drugs.

In fairness, that’s bad.

the solution becomes the problem

But California voters in 2014 passed Proposition 47, which made many felonies into misdemeanors and eliminated sending people to jail or prison for personal drug use. Or they might shoplift, bounce a check for a small amount, or even steal a car if it’s really crappy and worth less than $950.

In many cases, these bush-league but prolific lawbreakers basically get a warning, then another warning, and then probably a few months in custody in the county. If the police had bothered to arrest them, which many people were disgusted with, even if technically it was their job.

So many of these criminals remain in poverty and addiction, and nothing has changed their lives or ours for the better. Except for this big fact: With all the money we saved by not incarcerating people, we funded the entire infrastructure of treatment and anti-recidivism measures mandated by Proposition 47. This will help people, but it will probably be destroyed if Proposition 36 passes.

But faced with this criminal merry-go-round, district attorneys lumped retail thefts in with drug charges and other matters (such as longer sentences for dealers) and passed Prop. 47’s rules. Created a proposal for changes.

They want to be able to charge a third time for a currently minor offense, such as drug possession or petty theft, as a felony (but not as a “required treatment” felony, meaning that if treatment is not Successfully passed an addiction program (with the possibility of being withdrawn if necessary).

But Congress just spent more than a decade trying to fix a racially biased justice system that led to the over-incarceration of black and brown people. So many members of Congress had no interest in helping prosecutors lock people up. Even if it angers their former friends who are now wealthy major box store owners. (However, Congress later passed a retail theft bill, restoring relationships between retailers and lawmakers in time for a new lobbying quarter).

But Proposition 36 moved forward.

goodwill

This is where things get complicated. Because at least some of the district attorneys who wrote Proposition 36 aren’t just trying to lock up all the people who don’t remember to hide their pipes when the cops walk by.

Although I have great respect for one of the main authors, Yolo County District Atty. Jeff ReisigI believe we have good intentions for this effort and for the people who are likely to be charged with felonies.

Once a lock-up guy, Reisig has evolved to believe in second chances.

But he is frustrated that the DA’s office has little power to force people into treatment because in his experience, most people don’t change unless they have to. In 2014, before Proposition 47 took effect, his drug diversion court had 420 participants. In 2024, it will be 14.

He’s seen it in his own family. His nephew developed a heroin addiction in 2014, he said in a text message. Now, the nephew has progressed to meth and fentanyl and has been homeless in Sacramento for years. Reisig said she loves him, but her nephew “steals from retail stores” every day to pay for drugs.

“He has no desire or intention to voluntarily choose treatment. He is too ill to understand his illness,” Reisig said. “To me, Prop. 36 is an act of mercy that will save his life and save many others.”

forced change

Behind this is a conflict between those who believe that forced treatment is ineffective, because even the threat of imprisonment cannot force people to change, and those like Reisig who believe that the status quo is a failure. There is.

For me, I would split the baby. I don’t think forced treatment will work for many people, but it may work for some people.

But should the price of failure be a felony that makes it nearly impossible to obtain the necessities of life, including work and housing?

Because almost everyone with an addiction, whether it’s sugar, alcohol, or fentanyl, fails to quit many times before succeeding. I can’t stress this enough, but it takes most people multiple attempts to quit drugs.

Supporters of Proposition 36 say prosecutorial discretion would prevent the new law from being misused to lock people up over trivial matters or punish people with substance use disorders simply because they are addicted. claims.

Still, legally speaking, third-time offenders can possess personal quantities of hard drugs, or just about anything — a slice of pizza, a bottle of vodka, a carton of cigarettes — if prosecutors want to try. He could be sentenced to prison for stealing.

If every county had a prosecutor like Reisig, things might work. But there are many prosecutors who are willing to try repeat offenders on felony charges every chance they get.

In other words, Proposition 36 is fundamentally flawed. That is, this proposal risks criminalizing addiction and creating more felons without ensuring that more people actually come clean.

Those who fail to receive treatment will almost certainly end up in prison.

practical problems

But I also have realistic opinions about Proposition 36.

Our hospital does not have enough space to mandate treatment. Seriously, if there was enough space to check into a rehab facility like Motel 6, wouldn’t you think more people would at least give it a try?As my colleagues on the editorial board have pointed out, many… In these counties, overnight treatment is not available at all.

It doesn’t magically appear just because a judge orders it. Supporters of Prop. 36 believe the money could come from Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 1, passed in March, which could theoretically provide more funding for substance abuse treatment. I’m not going to explain how it works, but basically what I’m saying is, this doesn’t work. Most of that money is already tied up, and attempting to raid it would effectively be stealing from one program to pay for another.

In other words, Prop. 36 becomes what the state calls an “unfunded mandate” – a law we cannot pay for. It’s like renting a penthouse knowing the check is a felony.

So Congress needs to do a cleanup, including funding (cue the laugh track). Or, the duty to treat becomes a false incentive that ends up in jail. Or it becomes an empty threat method that only makes things harder for everyone.

Because is it your fault that you’re still using drugs when you can’t get court-ordered treatment? Or is it the state’s fault for making promises it can’t deliver? If Prop. 36 passes, the law itself will likely be challenged in court as people consider how to request treatment when it is not available.

So, both philosophically and practically, Prop. 36, to me, is a bad solution to a bad problem, even with good intentions.

What else should I read?

Must read: Inside the battle for America’s most critical battleground state
Mother Nature always wins. Milton threatens to take out flood insurance on Parliament
LA Times Special: Podcast, ‘The View’ with Howard Stern: How Harris and Trump are ‘microtargeting’ voters

stay golden,
Anita Chhabria

PS: Hurricane Milton is here and journalists are working to save cats. Kudos to Christopher Salas of Hearst DC for stepping in under dire circumstances (yes, that’s what I did).

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox.