Ten of thousands inmates could be released because of overcrowding

When you commit a felony and go to jail, you lose those rights. That is the law.

The problem is this:

Not all defendants convicted of a non-violent drug possession offense are eligible for probation and treatment under Prop 36. Subdivision (b) of section 1210.1 of the California Penal Code deems the following defendants ineligible for the program:

1. Any defendant who has been incarcerated within the last five years for a serious or violent felony offense.

2. Any defendant convicted in the same proceeding of a non-drug related misdemeanor or felony.

3. Any defendant who, during the commission of the offense, was in possession of a firearm and, at the same time, was either in possession of or under the influence of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine or phencyclidine (PCP).

4. Any defendant who refuses treatment.

5. Any defendant who has two separate drug related convictions, has participated in Prop 36 twice before, and who is found by the court by clear and convincing evidence to be unamenable to any and all forms of available drug treatment. In such cases the defendant shall be sentenced to 30 days in jail.

------

The law doesn't work. A 32 percent decrease is only in the vein of misdemeanor offenses like the fine for possession of marijuana.

Clearly, any person who has previously been convicted of a felony within the last five years is ineligible for treatment; any person convicted of any other misdemeanor or felony is disqualified for treatment; any person who was under the influence or in possession of COCAINE, HEROIN, METHAMPHETAMINE, or PCP is disqualified for treatment; any person who qualifies but refuses the treatment is ineligible for treatment; and any person who has previous drug-related convictions and can be proven to be incapable of rehabilitating is ineligible for treatment.

It appears that you have to fit in a very, very, incredibly tiny percentile in order to be eligible under this program. I'm sorry, but the law clearly states that at least four substances disqualify you [being the four most well-known controlled substances], any previous drug-related issues can disqualify you, any criminal activity either apart or hand-in-hand with substance abuse disqualifies you...

I'm done pointing out the obvious here.

[PS. Arnold, himself, stated that the program has a high-rate of failure and needs reform. If that fool thinks there is a problem, shouldn't everyone with a double-digit IQ agree?]

In light of your response, I rescind only a few of my assumptions. The reason why is because the program has failed to provide substantial information supporting rehabilitation; I'm sorry but a 36% rehabilitation rate is substantially low for a program costing as much money as this one does. A need for reform proves little use of the program in its current state, and further provisions under that law limit the ability for repeat drug offenders to seek adequate treatment.

You, yourself, stated that the program is prone to people skipping town, failing subsequent drug tests, and being arrested for crimes committed during treatment. This states very clearly that the law does not provide for in-patient treatment centers, but for out-patient services along the vein of a probation sentence. You might as well slap them on the wrist or stuff a bar of soap in their mouths. The act does not provide for successful rehabilitation outside of the willing participation of the offender, spurring further drug-related crimes; and the provisions for future treatment fall in line with California's 3 Strikes law, which will ultimately place someone in dire need of professional intervention in a jail cell for the rest of their life.

Your blunt assumption that I don't believe in consequences for the crime is incompetent, rude, and displaced. I clearly stated that I recommend a long-term treatment program with a minimal sentence to follow, and probation for five years. At no point did I state, assume to state, or condone the "slapping on the wrists" of criminal offenders. What is clear is that drug offenders have limited capabilities for achieving success apart from drug-related activities, and giving them a bus ticket to a rehab facility does not constitute a "rehab program". If the millions of taxpayer dollars are being spent on a program that leaves substance abusers free to walk the streets when they aren't seeking treatment, what makes you think that the sheer will of a drug addict to avoid their addiction, while going through withdrawals, and with the freedom to access their addiction will successfully see them through treatment?

The reality is California passed a proposition that has failed all but the 36% who, statistically, had the interest in seeing through rehab. Did the statistics take into account those of the 36% who would later be convicted of another drug-related crime? Did the statistics take into account those of the 36% who would later be arrested for any misdemeanor or felony? After reevaluating with those two questions in mind, you'll find a more realistic figure as to the success of a multi-million dollar "Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act".

Rehabilitation is not just about ending drug abuse; it's about teaching people to live within the general public, in a lawful, productive manner-- something many hard-lined abusers do not know how to do. If it were as easy as throwing people in jail and letting them think about what they did for awhile, California's prisons wouldn't be overpopulated, now would they?

And with the utmost respect, you're an invaluable commentator. Blatantly, I had forgone some information and jumped to conclusions about things. I agree wholeheartedly that those penitentiaries are not filled with marijuana offenders- as one other commentator stated, there are over 600 people awaiting execution at one prison alone [I may be off].

It would be wonderful to live in a world where crime didn't exist, and people had no intention of committing crimes. From a more personal perspective, it makes me incredibly upset sometimes that murder is possible, people can become seriously addicted to substances, and terrorism actually exists. But if there's one thing I'm happy about, it's the fact that one person can call out another on an issue and the two can safely conclude on middle ground.

There's nothing more important than checks and balances, and I appreciate every word you've put forward to me.

Give me a break, you're shaking in your boots so you had to call out the socialist boogeyman.

Non-profit doesn't mean government controlled idiot. It means non-profit.

That can be anything from donation driven to volunteer work.

But you can't deal with that, you need your shill media and your failing policies. Otherwise *gasp* you might have to admit you were wrong about some things!

Currently, US Law limits private funding [which means the candidate uses his/her own income to promote themselves] because of the unfair advantage some contenders for public office may have over others. Most funding is made through public donations to campaigns.

Drug prohibition is not, in any way, similar to the prohibition on alcohol of the early 20th century. Unlike alcohol, chemical additives are present in numerous controlled substances that can lead to severe brain and tissue damage, cancers and diseases, and abnormalities in genes, among a broad list of behavioral disorders. And, unlike alcohol, prolonged drug abuse can affect pregnancies years after ceased use. Alcohol, unlike most drugs, is safe in moderation. The abolishment of drug prohibition will - and this is all factual, scientifically backed conclusions - lead to much higher statistics in substance abuse and deaths related to the abuse of substances, felony violent and non-violent crimes [like domestic abuse, assault, grand theft, rape], and involuntary suicide [as a result of being under the influence]. The abolishment would also lead to a severe increase in behavioral disorders like manic-depression, anxiety, and anger issues, both as a result of withdrawals and for the individuals [like family, friends, boyfriends/girlfriends, coworkers] who have to be around for the experience.

Why you brought up health care is irrelevant. I agree the government should be responsible for providing adequate health care for all Americans, regardless of income. I also agree that private insurance companies should be abolished, as health care is not like car insurance: you are playing with a person's life, not their possessions. But regardless, laws are in place that prohibit medical organizations from refusing service to an individual who cannot afford it; and federal legislation prohibits insurance companies from forcing a medical institution to refuse service based on the patient's insurance policy. As long as those laws remain in place, you can walk into a hospital and get medical care. Fixing your life now is more important than waiting to come up with the money to do it.

On a further note, the limited equity in education is partly a result of refusal to invest on the part of the taxpayers. Most school districts have lost funding because taxpayers refused to give the money to educate their own children. Any organization, including the government, will not run for free. If you want to see some equity, open up your wallet and give where you feel it should be given.

Because our current press is soooooo free right? Rupert Murdoch makes sure of that.

No it wouldn't, NPR, PBS and its ilk have been the best press this country has ever had. All other news media relies solely on releasing sound bytes to glue eyes to screens to push up ratings.

Corporate news is entertainment, all the journalists are actors and all the commentary is either planned out or genuinely terrible.

And I call you named because you ARE an idiot and a tool. Who else would call non-profit media socialist? All of these things are self-evident, it really doesn't take much thought to figure it out.

You only call my arguments weak either because you can't refute them or you know I'm right but your conservative programming makes it obligatory for you to say otherwise.

it's crazy where this has gotten us.

I am sure that they went in with a bachelors of marijuana, but you know they always come out with a masters in mayhem.

exactly!

I second.

you got it man!

thank you!

Good for you. I hope you don't mind them living down the street (alley) or even boarding with you. Thanks for your taking them in, you've saved them from coming into mine.

hey kyle, well, obviously you never went to college (i mean...obviously from your posts), i did have these kids living down the street.

if youre talking about drug DEALERS well thats also easily handled, revise the useless drug laws. marijuana is much safer than drinking, ecstasy apparently as safe as horse back riding, people were doing cocaine for centuries before it became "dangerous." if we weren't putting people in prison for this then we also wouldn't have to worry about ghetto drug dealers. Dealers are also integral parts of many poor communities but thats a whole nother argument to which I doubt you know much about.

heroine and meth can go straight to hell though

yup, gives more reason for more 'protective state' and spying to make sure all these released criminals don't hurt us.

exactly the point of this.

couldn't agree more with you bro.