e way to do it.” Would Proposition 36 be a financially sound investment for taxpayers? If we are going to seriously consider an alternative solution to the financially murderous process of our current drug policies, one must take fiscal responsibility into consideration. A California governmental study showed that taxpayers save $7 for every $1 invested in drug treatment. The state’s impartial Legislative Analyst says Proposition 36 can save California hundreds of millions of dollars a year, even after spending $120 million annually on treatment programs. In comparison, “The average cost to the taxpayer of California per inmate, per year is $23, 406.” (Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997.) “The average cost of a full treatment program per client is $4,300.” (National Treatment Evaluation Study, Center for Substance Abuse, 1997.) Beyond these statistics, “Currently, only 12% of the overall parole system budget is spent reintegrating paroles back into society.” (Legislative Analyst’s Office, Analysis of the ‘98-‘99 Budget Bill, 2000.)The question is where would we rather place our money, in the hands of those aimed at rehabilitating these offenders or with those who by impartial analysis spend only 12% of their annual budget rehabilitating them? The cost balance seems undeniable, if we can convert people from becoming inmates through treatment, these savings can become a reality. Beyond the simple cost of drug programs, the estimated cost benefits can be extended to what further costs treatment may prevent. “Criminal activity drops 66% after offenders receive substance abuse treatment” (General Report, CALDATA.) That means fewer offenders who will spend more time in jail and more offenders will be placed in the workplace, “Following treatment, 19% more persons received income from jobs and 11% fewer rece...
