ll be available to house dangerous, violent criminals.” (Fiscal Effect the “The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, California Legislative Analyst’s Office, 1999.) “Potential one-time avoidance of capital outlay costs to the state of between $450 million and $550 million in the long term.” (Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Governmental Fiscal Impact.) Reducing the prison construction demand would create this one-time cost savings. By keeping criminals who have convicted violent crimes behind bars and remanding those who have been convicted of drug possession to probation and treatment, an initial step is taken in easing prison overcrowding.Proposition 36 provides the answers to our several very relevant questions. Where has our war on drugs gotten us thus far? In reality, nowhere, all the current statistics point to increased drug use, increased drug purity and availability and increased possession convictions. Will tax money be soundly invested? On a number of levels, it begins to move money from a failing war on drugs, to battles that can be won. It would not only be reducing costs, it would be placing the budgeted money into a part of an effective solution. Will we affect our prison population? It would keep those convicted of drug possession out of jail, so that those who have convicted violent and dangerous crimes can remain there. It would make it possible for those who can be rehabilitated without jail sentences to do so, while putting those who can or will not behind bars. Perhaps the most important question of all, is there a way of reducing the drug use in America today? The answer is yes, Proposition 36....
