420

I wish there were more room in newspaper articles. The ones on Proposition 36, California's law that diverts people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses to treatment instead of locking them up, never seem to find the space to mention what I find to be a very important point: relapse is a part of recovery.

It strikes me as disingenuous to repeat the anti-Prop 36 notion that threatening people with jail time will keep them on the straight and narrow, and then completely omit the point that even people who want to and are actively trying to overcome an addiction experience relapses. Ever talked to someone who quit smoking? Did they succeed on their first try?

The particular story that got me thinking about this was a piece in today's Orange County Register. There's a hearing going on today in the lawsuit over the recently-passed changes to Prop 36 that allow judges to throw people in jail while they're in treatment. If our side prevails in today's hearing, the changes will be prevented from going into effect while the court decides whether they are constitutional.

Despite my gripes about the OC Register article, it did contain a fascinating point from Dan Abrahamson, DPA's director of legal affairs, about why legislators passed the bill even after their own lawyers told them it wouldn't hold up in court:

Because the amendment was tied to the budget package, lawmakers had incentive to pass it to ensure the state had an on-time budget this year, he said.

Meanwhile, they knew the law was questionable and the Drug Policy Alliance would sue. If they passed it, Abrahamson said, lawmakers knew they could appease law enforcement and look tough on crime, but the law itself might not go anywhere.

Posted by Megan Farrington.
http://www.nooked.com/news/itemtrack...0dc18105c36029

More...