Nonviolent Drug Offenders

Two years ago, California voters overwhelmingly revised the way courts deal with people convicted of possessing drugs for their personal use: Instead of prison, they would receive treatment. But about 10,000 nondangerous drug offenders still languish in state prison because the courts have interpreted Proposition 36 to apply only to individuals sentenced after the measure went into effect. And therein lies an opportunity to reduce the state's projected $34.

Actor Martin Sheen, who portrayed a president on television and is the father of admitted drug user Charlie Sheen, testified before a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday to ask Congress for continued support of drug courts, an alternative criminal justice program. A drug court is a special docket that addresses the cases of nonviolent drug offenders. Members participate in substance abuse treatment programs - usually for at least one year - and are subject to random drug testing.

If The Times is going to write about the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, please don't waste precious manpower and newsprint on another puff piece like "California Operations Put a Face on Minority Gains at DEA" (March 23). There are many pressing issues to write about; e.g., the DEA's ungodly $19.2-billion budget and its ideology-inspired crusade against medical marijuana. And besides, we already know why the DEA is hiring minorities: It makes it easier to bust minorities and continue filling our prisons with nonviolent drug offenders.

Ordinarily, states rely on courts and prisons to protect the citizenry from criminals, but California seems determined to turn that convention on its head: Here, we need courts to protect criminals from the state's voters. The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Tuesday whether to overturn an order by a panel of three federal judges that the state reduce its prison population to 137.5% of capacity within two years, which would mean trimming the inmate count by about 25% from its current average of 165,000.

The alarmist tone of the persons quoted in "Flood of Drug Diversion Cases Feared" (June 18) struck me as a bit melodramatic. Proposition 36 makes into law what has already been common practice in the courts for quite some time. I should know. I'm in a drug diversion program right now. My "offense" (if smoking half a joint can be considered such a thing) was committed over a year ago, and I was sentenced early this year. Why has this been common practice for so long? No one, certainly not any judge, wants to put an otherwise normal, productive citizen behind bars.

In response to "Hard Cases Hold the Key to Urban Peace," Column Left, June 13: Using a typical liberal approach, Rep. Maxine Waters wants to reward black men between 17 and 30 who have failed to graduate high school and been convicted of felonies. I can just see the administrator telling a young black man, "You have only committed one robbery, that is not enough to qualify for this giveaway program." An alternate to this insane approach would be to end the drug war, provide amnesty for all nonviolent drug offenders, including a clean record, and give employers a viable economic incentive to hire and train these people.

Rodney Blonien's commentary, "Build Smarter Prisons for Soaring Inmate Population" (Aug. 15), is exactly what one would expect from a past undersecretary of the California Youth and Adult Correctional Agency. In fact, Blonien's article depicts exactly what advocates have been alleging for years, that the Department of Corrections is riddled with mismanagement that creates their own dependency and job security. His comment "we don't imprison enough" is indicative of their mentality. Likewise his comment that "for every 100 felons arrested in California for serious crimes, only eight receive prison time" is not only false but seriously misleading.

The important drug question is not, "What did George sniff and when did he sniff it?" It is, "How do we handle the legion of nonviolent drug offenders who are now crowding our prisons?" This long-overdue discussion has become an electrified third rail of American politics--a subject neither party has been willing to touch for fear of being incinerated on contact.

Re "Judge rejects gov.'s inmate transfer tactic," Feb. 21 So many of those who express concern about California prisons being overcrowded are driven by their own conflicts of interest. The governor wants more prisons built. The prison guards don't want the prisoners sent elsewhere. The source of the problem is primarily our foolishness in passing the "three strikes" law. Most of those who voted for it had no idea that someone could be convicted of a third strike for a nonviolent crime.

Ordinarily, states rely on courts and prisons to protect the citizenry from criminals, but California seems determined to turn that convention on its head: Here, we need courts to protect criminals from the state's voters. The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Tuesday whether to overturn an order by a panel of three federal judges that the state reduce its prison population to 137.5% of capacity within two years, which would mean trimming the inmate count by about 25% from its current average of 165,000.

Re "Judge rejects gov.'s inmate transfer tactic," Feb. 21 So many of those who express concern about California prisons being overcrowded are driven by their own conflicts of interest. The governor wants more prisons built. The prison guards don't want the prisoners sent elsewhere. The source of the problem is primarily our foolishness in passing the "three strikes" law. Most of those who voted for it had no idea that someone could be convicted of a third strike for a nonviolent crime.

Two years ago, California voters overwhelmingly revised the way courts deal with people convicted of possessing drugs for their personal use: Instead of prison, they would receive treatment. But about 10,000 nondangerous drug offenders still languish in state prison because the courts have interpreted Proposition 36 to apply only to individuals sentenced after the measure went into effect. And therein lies an opportunity to reduce the state's projected $34.

If The Times is going to write about the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, please don't waste precious manpower and newsprint on another puff piece like "California Operations Put a Face on Minority Gains at DEA" (March 23). There are many pressing issues to write about; e.g., the DEA's ungodly $19.2-billion budget and its ideology-inspired crusade against medical marijuana. And besides, we already know why the DEA is hiring minorities: It makes it easier to bust minorities and continue filling our prisons with nonviolent drug offenders.

The newly installed head of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration said Monday that California's landmark approach to rehabilitating drug offenders can serve as a model for the rest of the country--if shortcomings in the program are fixed. "We need to watch the California experiment.

The alarmist tone of the persons quoted in "Flood of Drug Diversion Cases Feared" (June 18) struck me as a bit melodramatic. Proposition 36 makes into law what has already been common practice in the courts for quite some time. I should know. I'm in a drug diversion program right now. My "offense" (if smoking half a joint can be considered such a thing) was committed over a year ago, and I was sentenced early this year. Why has this been common practice for so long? No one, certainly not any judge, wants to put an otherwise normal, productive citizen behind bars.

The achingly thin, ghostly pale blond woman with too-bright blue eyes sits for only a few minutes, waiting nervously among a dozen people seeking drug and alcohol abuse treatment at Walden House. Then she heads for the door. "She said she doesn't belong with 'those people,' " says Chris Canter, a staff member who followed her outside and chased her down to talk. She never returned. In truth, the woman in her 20s has much in common with other members of the Walden House "family."

Actor Martin Sheen, who portrayed a president on television and is the father of admitted drug user Charlie Sheen, testified before a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday to ask Congress for continued support of drug courts, an alternative criminal justice program. A drug court is a special docket that addresses the cases of nonviolent drug offenders. Members participate in substance abuse treatment programs - usually for at least one year - and are subject to random drug testing.

The newly installed head of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration said Monday that California's landmark approach to rehabilitating drug offenders can serve as a model for the rest of the country--if shortcomings in the program are fixed. "We need to watch the California experiment.

Drugs got the upper hand early in Irene Garcia's life. In kindergarten she saw her father overdose on pills. At 12 she watched her mother deal PCP from their Lincoln Heights home. By her 19th birthday, Garcia was turning tricks in downtown Los Angeles, supporting a crack habit and two children--one born addicted. "Drugs came first--before my kids, before everything," Garcia, 34, recalls. "They blocked out the pain, the shame over selling my body, the guilt."

The important drug question is not, "What did George sniff and when did he sniff it?" It is, "How do we handle the legion of nonviolent drug offenders who are now crowding our prisons?" This long-overdue discussion has become an electrified third rail of American politics--a subject neither party has been willing to touch for fear of being incinerated on contact.