State

NORA is actually a drug-decriminalization measure disguised in sheep’s clothing. NORA is a sentencing statute and not a treatment statute.

NORA is not limited to nonviolent offenders. Despite its innocent sounding name, NORA does not deal solely with nonviolent offenders. Rather, it deals with criminals who have been arrested (this time) for a nonviolent drug offense.

NORA ignores scientific evidence about what works best for drug abusing criminal offenders. Decades’ worth of research indicates which types of interventions work well for drug-abusing criminal offenders, and which ones do not. The clearest lesson from this research is that offenders must be closely monitored and held accountable for their actions.

NORA is built upon the failed foundation of Proposition 36. If passed, NORA would extend a previous ballot initiative called Proposition 36. Proposition 36 did not go nearly as far as NORA in permitting numerous violations by offenders. Regardless, the results were still disastrous. Several evaluations conducted by leading researchers at UCLA concluded that over one-quarter of the offenders never arrived for a single treatment session, 60% of those who did arrive dropped out prematurely, and only one-quarter completed treatment. Put simply, over 75% of the cases were failures. Worse yet, crime actually increased! Offenders in Proposition 36 committed more drug crimes and property crimes than offenders who were not in Proposition 36.

Vote NO on NORA because it threatens public safety, mandates ineffective treatments, wastes money, and legitimizes drug abuse.

Please pass the word ... NORA is bad news for California.

*** BUMP ***

*** BUMP ***

Please explain some more details. I am not sure I understand this.

Thanks

?

Sorry for the delay, Herblady. I'm out of town and just got computer access. Anyway, NORA was designed by the folks who want to legalize drugs. NORA is a sentencing statute and not a treatment statute. It prevents judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officials from holding offenders accountable for abusing illegal drugs and continually violating the law. NORA requires judges to give drug offenders six bites at the apple before they can be meaningfully sentenced for their crimes. Offenders can commit six consecutive felonies and/or probation violations before receiving appreciably more than a slap on the wrist. Worse still, inmates released from prison on parole can only be supervised for a few short months, and cannot be returned to prison for committing new misdemeanor crimes and continuing to abuse drugs.

Decades’ worth of research indicates which types of interventions work well for drug-abusing criminal offenders, and which ones do not. The clearest lesson from this research is that offenders must be closely monitored and held accountable for their actions. NORA ignores this evidence and erects steadfast barriers against effective dispositions. Worse still, it requires the criminal justice system to put “harm reduction” services on equal footing with legitimate treatment programs. For those who don’t know, in this context “harm reduction” is a euphemism for the legalization movement. It requires treatment professionals and criminal justice professionals to tolerate continued drug usage by offenders if that’s what the offenders set as their own personal goals.

NORA claims economic benefits that are speculative and might never materialize. The DPA states (falsely) that NORA will save California taxpayers over $1 billion per year. If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office concluded:

“The exact costs to the state of carrying out the various provisions of this measure [NORA] are unknown and could, in the aggregate, be higher or lower than we have estimated by hundreds of millions of dollars annually, depending on how this measure is interpreted and implemented.” (p. 8, emphasis added)

In other words, NORA could wind up saving California relatively little money, or could even end up costing California more money in the long run as a result of higher crime and victimization rates. In fact, at least one study in two California communities found that Proposition 36 wasted money because it required the treatment system to continuously enroll and re-enroll offenders who quickly dropped out, re-offended, and were then sentenced back to treatment again and again and again.

Kinda of a long answer, but I hope it helps. Thanks for asking!

* if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognized this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
* and—counter-intuitively, perhaps—if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are less likely to concede that the content of what has been learned is useless, pointless or valueless. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".

Another pov - haven't we believed the fear mongers long enough?

California Proposition 5: Rehab Instead of Prison for Nonviolent Drug Crimes – YES

Pete-Stahl.gif By Peter L. Stahl
Pete Rates the Propositions

Remember the War on Drugs? Well, it's over, and drugs won. (Is that Bill Maher's line? Help me out here.)

It turns out that the military solution to drug addiction, including herbicide spraying in Bolivia and Coast Guard interdictions, is as futile as it is expensive. And the criminal solution, throwing drug users into prison by the thousand, does nothing to reduce addiction.

What we need instead is some kind of solution that addresses the demand side of the equation. And I don't mean "Just Say No." I mean reducing addiction levels through drug rehab. This is not a military or criminal solution—it is a medical solution, and it's the only solution known to get results.

Prop 5 will reduce the pointless incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders, and instead offer them rehabilitation and a meaningful chance to break the cycle of addiction and arrest. And it will make significant dent in our prison overcrowding problem.

Prop 5 has four main components. First, it will expand the adult treatment programs in lieu of prison that have been in place since we approved Prop 36 in 2000. Prop 5 creates three levels of care and supervision for nonviolent drug offenders, based on their criminal history and drug problem severity. A mix of incentives and consequences, including hard jail time, will encourage completion of treatment. Prop 36 has been a great success, with over 80,000 people completing treatment programs in its first seven years. It makes good sense to build on this.

Second, Prop 5 will mandate local sanctions instead of prison to punish minor parole violations by nonviolent offenders. This will further reduce strain on the prison system. Also, parolees and former parolees will continue to receive rehabilitation services to help them stay clean as they return to society.

Third, possession of less than one ounce of marijuana will change from a misdemeanor to an infraction, with a maximum fine of $100 for adults, and mandatory drug education classes for minors. This low level of punishment for small amounts is appropriate for the severity of the crime. And it is a concrete first step away from the military/criminal solution that has proven so ineffective.

Finally, Prop 5 creates drug treatment and other support programs for at-risk youth. No such services exist now for people under 18. Prop 5 will set up network of drug treatment programs for young people, who could be referred to treatment by family members, school counselors or physicians. Services would also be available for youth on probation or involved with the juvenile justice system. Obviously a lot of drug users begin before they turn 18. Prop 5 recognizes this, and may help nip many addictions in the bud.

California's prison population has been growing rapidly. It was 100,000 as recently as 1990, but now tops 170,000. The prisons, which were designed to hold about 83,000, are bursting at the seams. To handle demands that exceed 200% of intended capacity, inmates are stacked three-high everywhere, including areas never intended to house people. It's cruel and inhumane, just as the problems addressed by Prop 2, but here we're dealing with human beings, not farm animals.

Prop 5 will reduce the severity of this awful overcrowding. Roughly 30,000 inmates are in prison for nonviolent drug offenses. It is estimated that Prop 5 will allow this number to be reduced by about 18,000, or 10% of the total prison population. It's not nearly enough, but it's progress. And those 18,000 nonviolent offenders will be much better served by rehab than incarceration; we'll all be better off because of that.

I haven't even mentioned the really cool part of Prop 5. Even though it expands expensive drug treatment and starts up a new youth program, Prop 5 is expected to produce a net savings in the billions due to the reduction in the prison population. Considering all the beneficial effects outlined above, and the boost it will give toward a rational, medical solution to our drug problem, I wholeheartedly endorse this proposition.

Pete Rates the Propositions is non-partisan and unaffiliated with any candidate or organization. Pete remains obstinately undoctrinaire, considering each ballot proposition on its merits. He is proud to have offended (and persuaded) voters of all political stripes. This originally appeared on Pete Rates the Propositions and is republished with the permission of the author.
Posted on September 23, 2008

None of what you say about NORA (Prop 5) will come to pass. A person needs to have SIX offenses in order to for CLASS. The NORA folks are calling it treatment, but it is no more treatment than the PC1000 class - which is no treatment at all.

There are NO consequences for repeat offenders until they have committed their SIXTH offense. And then there are no consequences for attending the CLASSES under the influence - in fact, there will be no drug testing so people can come to the class under the influence and not have sanctions.

It will save California NO money and will most likely cost us a lot of money in terms of more crimes and more victims.

It is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It has been shown over and over and over again that the only effective deterent to repeat offenses is drug court with sanctions. This has been true since about 1953 when Judge Ray Harrison started the first drug court in Des Moines, IA.

If you truly want to be informed check out the NADCP website for accurate information.

Thanks for the info

Prop 5 allows anyone to claim they have a "drug or alcohol addition problem" to get out of a crime. Basically they don't go to trial if its non-violent. It will allow child molesters, burglers, identity theives, etc to go free. Its not just about drug crimes. It was written poorly and left open to ANY non-violent or crimes they consider non-serious (which are numerous).