Bakersfield.com: Kern County news, events, classifieds, shopping, & search

Nephew's death a tragic price

Community Voices

The Bakersfield Californian | Thursday, May 15 2008 5:39 PM

Last Updated: Thursday, May 15 2008 5:40 PM

In November 2000, California voters passed Proposition 36, also known as the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act.

This proposition went into effect the following July funded by our state at the annual cost of $120 million. The intent of Proposition 36 was to allow first- and second-time non-violent, simple drug possession offenders the opportunity to receive substance abuse treatment instead of incarceration. There are a few stipulations to the proposition, such as no prior convictions for serious or violent crime or the use of a firearm; and no convictions for the sale, manufacture or production of controlled substances.

Supporters of Proposition 36 will argue the annual savings to the state prison system leads to financial savings for all Californians. They also feel drug treatment is more effective because it deals with the root of the crime-addiction.

They will also tell you it helps the overworked and overloaded law enforcement, probation and parole departments by relieving pressure secondary to no jail time.

However, in a study completed by the University of California at Los Angeles in 2007, researchers concluded that the proposition was severely underfunded and found this to be detrimental to the quality of treatment. The study also concluded that over $230 million was needed last year for adequate treatment.

But underfunding of Proposition 36 is not the only problem. It also replaces judicial discretion with a mandatory and inflexible system. Judges are stripped of their power to jail. It decriminalizes the use of heroin, crack, methamphetamine and PCP.

Law enforcement must now wait until an addicted parolee with a huge habit actually commits a violent or serious crime before returning that person to prison. It wastes resources on undeserving participants who are not amendable to drug treatment.

Overloaded drug courts are allowing addicted criminals to plead down to lesser charges in order for them to become eligible for Proposition 36. But most importantly, it puts public safety at extreme risk. These addicts are out driving our streets and in our malls with our children.

I have a strong opinion on this issue because my 13-year-old nephew, Brock Bellue, was killed by a Proposition 36 individual who was under the influence of multiple substances when he disregarded a stop sign. Here are only some of the offenses this individual committed during the last few years: burglary (multiple); driving under the influence and possession of marijuana and hash; possession of a controlled substance for sale (multiple); possession of heroin; transporting controlled substances (multiple); petty theft; manufacture of a controlled substance; receiving stolen property; under the influence (multiple).

Does this sound like someone amendable to drug treatment? An individual like this does not care about society or reforming; for they know about Proposition 36 and no jail time.

It would be interesting to see the statistics from Proposition 36. How many individuals have been reformed due to Proposition 36, versus those who were arrested again, still addicted, committed crimes because of their habit, or even took an innocent life while on this cost saving proposition?

When is society going to realize drugs are rampant throughout our communities and it is getting worse everyday? Laws like this do not help. One innocent 13-year-old life is one too many for the perceived savings this proposition may have.

Justin Tobias is a Bakersfield anesthesiologist. Community Voices is an expanded commentary that may contain up to 500 words. The Californian reserves the right to reprint commentaries in all formats, including on its Web page.