Tuesday night's Public Policy Analysis Senior Symposium, "Proposition 36: Reforming California's Drug Policy," pitted Yes on 36 campaign manager Dave Fratello '90 and California State Senate Majority Leader Senator Richard G. Polanco against Proposition 36 opponents Judge Patrick A. Morris and drug court graduate Marcelle Wess. The panel debated the merits of the initiative through rounds of opening statements, moderator proposed question and rebuttal, and questions taken from the audience.

Under Proposition 36, Section 1210.1 would be added to the California Penal Code to read: "Éany person convicted of a non-violent drug possession offense shall receive probation. As a condition of probation the court shall require participation in and completion of an appropriate drug treatment programÉA court may not impose incarceration as an additional condition of probation."

After a brief introduction by PPA Senior Katie Giles, moderator Tyler Dillavou '01 prompted the panel to give opening statements.

Fratello, who served as communications director for the Drug Policy Foundation (1991-1996) and has been a spokesman for medical marijuana initiatives in seven states, addressed his opening statement to the question "Why 36, why now." Fratello noted that drug addiction is resilient, and the standard tenet of the war on drugs that "if we punish we can control" needs to be replaced with a rational and realistic program.

Referring to the international drug war as "Vietnam in Spanish," Fratello asserted that military and police efforts to stop drug abuse are failures that will never work, and that treatment for drug abusers is the only rational policy. Fratello explained that, despite the effectiveness of drug treatment as opposed to incarceration, politicians were slow to back treatment-only measures for fear of being portrayed as soft on drugs. Thus, said Fratello, a citizens initiative is the only expedient way to get non-violent drug offenders in treatment. Fratello closed by noting that the initiative applied only to first or second time drug offenders charged with possession for personal use.

Senator Polanco, who serves on the Joint Committee on Prison Constructions and Operations, spent most of his opening statement detailing the numerical effects that the initiative would have on California's drug offenders and prisons. Noting that only 2,000 beds are currently available for treatment of drug abusers, he asserted that vastly more drug abusers could be helped under Proposition 36, and that the initiative wold actually save the state money due to the decrease in prison population and prison construction that would occur.

Judge Morris claimed to speak on behalf of 200 drug court judges in his opening address. He framed Proposition 36 not as a choice between treatment and prison, but as a choice between ineffective and effective treatment for drug offenders. Morris asserted that pouring more money into California's current drug court program is a more effective option for treating drug abusers. Morris outlined the three elements that he thinks an effective drug program must have: frequent monitoring, frequent drug testing, and immediate sanctions for inappropriate behavior.

"There is no assurance that these conditions would be met under the drug programs that are supported by Proposition 36," Morris said. "Proposition 36 simply does not demand accountability."

Wess, a drug court graduate and recovering addict who represents drug court graduates on the Collaborative Justice Courts Advisory Committee, agreed with Morris that Proposition 36 does not demand enough accountability of drug addicts.

"Drug addicts are manipulative," said Wess. "We can convince an Eskimo to buy ice. We can certainly convince a drug treatment program that we are clean."

Wess charged that a lack of judicial oversight in Proposition 36 would hurt the effectiveness of treatment, and that most people caught for personal possession of drugs are dealing or stealing to support their habit anyway.

After opening statements, the panel argued the merits of the initiative after prompts by moderator or audience based questions. After each answer, panelists on the other side of the issue were given the opportunity to rebut.

The main thrust of arguments raised in favor of Proposition 36 are as follows: independent legislative analysis predicts savings in the millions of dollars if Proposition 36 passes; Arizona and New York have implemented similar programs with success; Proposition 36 only affects simple drug possession, and thus violent offenders will not be "let off easy"; significantly more drug offenders will receive treatment if Proposition 36 passes; Proposition 36 offers an immediate solution, and if it does not pass there is no assurance replacement legislation will pass.

Morris and Wess responded that Proposition 36 savings will be short-lived because the drug treatments will fail and the offenders will eventually return to prison. Morris argued that the Arizona and New York programs have been unsuccessful. Morris and Wess both argue that drug offenders will get off easy under Proposition 36 because they cannot be sentenced to jail until they have been caught with drugs three times. And even then, Judge Morris argues that the offender could only get a 30-day sentence. Fratello disputed that conclusion. Morris also noted that if Proposition 36 passes, the successful drug court program will die for lack of more funding.

The main thrust of arguments raised against Proposition 36 were as follows: the initiative includes no safeguards to insure treatment programs are effective; Proposition 36 might make drug testing impossible for lack of funding; Proposition 36 ties the hand of judges and erodes all accountability in drug treatment programs.

Fratello and Polanco argued that judges will have significant control under Proposition 36 to decide the fate of offenders on a case by case basis and to monitor their drug program. They also assert that Proposition 36 will not lessen drug testing, and that a state agency will have to approve all drug treatment programs.

The California Legislative Analyst's Office estimates a total fiscal impact of $100 million to $150 million in annual net savings to the state of California if Proposition 36 passes. It also estimates $450 million to $550 million one time cost avoidance due to a diminished need for new prisons.

Started in 1978, the Pomona College Program in Public Policy Analysis (PPA) seeks to raise student awareness of public policy issues through speakers, public debate forums, and advertising.