Proposition 36
I am an alcohol and drug counselor, since working in the field I have come across many addicts and alcoholics who have relapsed time and time again but have an initial focus, and that is recovery. Though they have multiple relapses, it takes a court decision for a drug offender to obtain sobriety and have acceptance of their irresponsible actions through Proposition 36. These are most of the client’s I’ve worked with, “Prop 36ers” is what we refer them as. Proposition 36, approved in November 2000, is state funded for those non-criminal drug offender, in which most Californians go against this proposition. Those non-criminal offenders that receive treatment see proposition 36 as a leeway from jail or prison. Money is being spent on a program that has statistically been proven to be useful and necessary in this society. The drug offender that has received proposition 36 has taken accountability and confronted their drug offense as an addiction. Addiction or lifestyle has led their lives into institutions, prison, and/or death. Proposition 36 becomes a major issue in Southern California due to its high drug crime rates in Los Angeles. My objective is to bring into light of the high cost being implemented to treatment programs to provide services for the drug offenders will be of benefit with the right amount being dispersed. Proposition 36 was implemented to delay overcrowding in county jails, and state prisons on drug offenders.

A pro to proposition 36 is having great intentions to minimize those drug offenders going to jail, one big issue surrounding proposition 36, is the large number of habitual use offenders that were incarcerated because of their disease. Seeing as though the money is being used to help those in need, the pro in this goes beyond facts and statistics. In reality the money is going towards the faith people have to recover from mind/mood altering substances. It is the drug offender who is looking to better himself, the money being spent on treatment centers are being put to good use. According to Californiachoice.com, supporters expressed this, “They say that the measure will make the punishment more fairly fit the crime committed and will ensure violent offenders are off the streets.” (California Choices, Web). To ensure these violent offenders to stay off the street, the money being spent on treatment programs allows to hire competent counselors, and therapists to closely work with these offenders. By allowing staff to work with these violent and drug offenders, it is money well spent by the state of California. The work is effective, “Proposition 36 has successfully brought a large number of drug-abusing offenders to treatment in a very short time period, many for the first time.” (Yih-Ing Hser, 104). Another point to this pro, is that “The prison guards' union president agrees that rehabilitation works” (Lindner, Web). If a prison guard can see that this Proposition is useful to those drug offenders, there should be no reason to