(Jack) This week . . . a controversial initiative proposes treatment over punishment for some drug offenders. One mother supports it . . . both her sons, drug addicts at 13 . . . they cycled in and out of treatment and the criminal justice system. OUT: “public safety”
(( Melissa )) Plus . . . a first for the California state university system. Get health insurance or don’t come to class. OUT “ financial aid.”
(Melissa) Hello , I’m Melissa Crowley. And I’m Jack Kavanagh. Those stories and more next.
(Jack) Thank you for joining us. Just
ahead, California state unive
rsities
make healthcare headlines. We’ll have the groundbreaking changes later in
the program. But we begin with an initiative that could make a drastic change
on how we deal with non-violent drug offenders. Proposition 36 mandates treatment
over prison. But should we treat drug offenders as a medical or a criminal
justice problem. Michael Isip went to San Diego to find out.
PROP 36 PACKAGE
((Gretchen Burns Bergman, Supporter of Prop 36)) I'm a mother of two sons, and they're both in their twenty's and I love them very much but they're both drug addicts… …They're lives didn't start out that way. They started out with tennis and swimming and all kinds of wonderful promise but …
but drugs took control of them at 13 . . . their teenage years spent in and out of treatment . . . …the eldest ended up doing time.
((Gretchen Burns Bergman, Supporter of Prop 36)) at first I was glad because I thought he was gonna die. I mean a parent waits by the phone all the time, this is what it feels like, your waiting for the phone call, either from the prison or the morgue. I mean it gets that bad… …you know that they’re using to the point where they’re going to die.
and it got worse . . . in prison drugs were easy to come by, he learned how to use a needle.
((Gretchen Burns Bergman, Supporter of Prop 36)) He came out still a drug addict with all those problems and also an ex-convict.
California throws more drug offenders in prison per capita than any other state.Most prisoners do not get rehabilitation But proposition 36 could change that for some . . . it would set aside 120 million dollars per year for five years, putting non-violent drug offenders into treatment instead of behind bars
((Lori Koster, Drug Court Coordinator)) Proposition 36 is dangerous, misleading and uninformed.
Lori Koster is Deputy D-A and Drug Court coordinator for San Diego county.
((Lori Koster, Drug Court Coordinator)) it is not restricted to non-violent drug offenders. It's restricted only by the fact that the person has not been in custody for five years or convicted of a misdemeanor involving injury.
And by requiring treatment for some criminals, prop 36 prevents judges from considering their relevant case history. The idea that some people are criminals first but just happen to be addicts.
((Lori Koster, Drug Court Coordinator)) Addicts for years, 12 years, 15 years, 20 years, they have never been held accountable for their behavior.
That’s not the case in drug court . . . . a system mixing toughness and compassion.Where Judges can impose immediate sanctions, drug tests, frequent court appearances and jail time… The recidivism rate among graduates of drug court is only 15 percent, prosecutors say it works because it demands accountability, an element that they warn is missing from proposition 36.
((Lori Koster, Drug Court Coordinator)) When they come into Drug Court and they are told you had a dirty test, you go into custody for 30 days, they think about what they are doing in custody. And they think about is this the life I want, or do I want to go the drug treatment route and get clean and sober.
((Joel Farrington, Recovering Addict))
I think it’s the Japanese that have the expression the man takes a drink, the drink takes a drink, and the drink takes the man.
Joel Farrington is a recovering drug addict and a graduate of drug court.
((Joel Farrington, Recovering Drug Addict)) It was the system was looking for a way to help me out of it, and made me want to try harder, it made me want to be better and overcome it.
Drugs stole 20 years of his life and there’s one major reason that has kept him from going back the last 3 years.
((Joel Farrington, Recovering Addict)) The ever present idea that if you mess up you’re going back to jail, which for most of us is not a vacation, it's not a good place to be at all.
((Gretchen Burns Bergman, Supporter of Prop 36)) Well, for my son, the threat of jail is nothing, when they’re in their addiction they're not afraid of homelessness, they're not afraid of jail, they're really not even afraid of death.
And for her older son, life behind bars tightened the grip that drugs had on his life
((Gretchen Burns Bergman, Supporter of Prop 36)) punitive incarceration does not work, and more than that, it damages human beings.
In San Diego, I’m Michael Isip for California Capitolweek.
END PROP 36 PACKAGE
(( Jack)) By the way, Gretchen’s two sons are still going through treatment, are doing well, and are both working. And we should mention, there are more than 800 drug courts across the United States, 101 here in California. Now . . . joining me for more on prop 36. On the “Yes” side: Dr. John McCarthy, of the California Society of Addiction Medicine
Jim Gonzalez, Deputy Campaign Manager for “Yes on 36” On the “NO” side . . Larry Brown, executive director of the california district attorneys association. And Judge Donald Shaver of Stanislaus County Superior Court.
PROP 36 DISCUSSION
((Jack)) Judge, let me begin with you. We are loading our prisons with non-violent drug offenders. Taxpayers are spending a lot of money on that, and as we’ve just seen in that story from San Diego, prisons have a way of making the drug problem even worse. Why are we doing this?
((Judge
Donald Shaver)) Well, what you have to do, Jack, is keep in mind how the system
works. Treatment before resorting to incarceration only makes good, common
sense, and we’ve been doing that for the past five to ten years in California.
Just in my county alone, our drug courts saved the county 30,000 jail bed
days.
((Jack)) Nonetheless, there are a lot of people, non-violent drug offenders, who are ending up in prison, and as we've seen, prisons exacerbate the drug problem.
((Judge Donald Shaver)) Prison is the last line for people who have gone through all these treatment alternatives and just have shown that they’re not going to be cooperative. They’re not going to work with the programs. It starts with PC-1000 first of all for first time offenders, and then second, third, and fourth offenders work locally with a drug court, and that’s a California rehabilitation center, a civil live-in center.
((Jack)) So, Jim, should we walk away
from the war on drugs?
((Jim Gonzalez, “Yes on 36”)) No, the independent legislative analyst says that Prop 36 with serve 37,000 people in California. The problem with the drug courts is that they only serve two percent of the people that have this problem. The other ninety-eight percent—
((Jack)) Okay, so it’s a lack of resources, basically?
((Judge Donald Shaver)) Part of it’s a lack of resources, but part of it is that we’re just a part of the continuum which treats a whole panoply of people before they end up where they just haven’t worked out in treatment, or, for whatever reason, they’re not making it, and they end up going to prison.
((Jack)) All right, but back to your point, Jim, that there’s thirty-six percent out there that—
((Jim Gonzalez)) The point is that the drug court has been around for ten years. They have not been well-funded. They have not, in ten years, really, you know, they’ve only scratched the surface of the problem. What Prop 36 does is it puts an infrastructure in place, 120 million dollars a year, and says a legislative analyst, that will save taxpayers over the next five years over 1.5 billion dollars. That’s a significant savings that can go towards schools and a number of other good things, and I think what we have to understand is that drug war has cost this country, since 1980, 250 billion dollars, and what’s happened? We have more drug addicts, we have cheaper drugs, we have more accessibility. There is a failure here, and that failure is that we haven’t made a large investment in treatment.
((Jack)) Let me ask Dr. McCarthy. This
is an old argument that goes back as far as drugs go back, the argument of
prevention versus criminal prosecution. Have we turned a corner here? Are
we going a different direction?
((Dr. McCarthy)) I think we have turned a corner. I think that most people are now onboard with treatment, the opposition and the people supporting Prop 36—
((Jack)) Judge Shaver is shaking his head. He’s saying, “Yes.”
((Dr. McCarthy)) The treatment works. The research is very strong that if you provide treatment—the problem is people can’t get treatment, especially the poor, and this is what Prop 36 does. We are incarcerating people who can not get treatment, and that is a problem, and it has not been rectified, and that’s what Prop 36 does.
((Jack)) All right, Larry, the same stipulations here. Treatment does work; we don’t have enough resources. Doesn’t Prop 36 solve that problem?
((Larry Brown, Attorney)) This is not a debate about treatment versus incarceration. It’s about effective treatment versus what’s in Prop 36. One fact: Of the over 600 million dollars of taxpayer funds that are earmarked for Prop 36 between now and 2006, not one dime can be used on drug testing. Additionally, it absolutely ties the court’s hands—
((Jack)) Can’t the legislature pass a bill and require—I mean, they can fix that can’t they? That’s a loophole obviously, but that can be fixed.
((Larry
Brown, Attorney)) My experience, and I assume it would be your experience
as well, is that it’s very difficult. Once an initiative is passed, the legislature
is very reluctant to ever go back and make thorough modifications. We’ve
seen it on 3 strikes. We’ve seen it this year on Medical Marijuana, which
everyone concedes is terrible drafted. It needs to be fixed, but all legislative
attempts to do so have failed.
((Jack)) Jim, let me ask you about public safety. People who are involved with drugs, for whatever reason, are dangerous people. Don’t we want them removed from society?
((Jim Gonzalez, “Yes on 36”)) I think that Prop 36—well, I’ll let Dr. McCarthy respond to that question if he wishes to.
((Dr. John McCarthy)) We know that most people who use illegal drugs are not dangerous. They’re not predatory, and they’re not violent. A Natural Institute of Drug Study in 1998 found that ninety-three percent of people who use illegal drugs have only been arrested for possession or under the influence, and that is the group that Prop 36 addresses. A small group of drug users are predatory and violent, and they are not eligible for this proposition.
((Jack)) Judge Shaver, the President Pro
Temp of the California State Senate, Senator John Burton, is very up front
about his cocaine addiction when he was in Congress. If he was driving through
your community and found to be in possession of cocaine and ended up in your
courtroom and you didn’t have the resources for drug court, then he’d be in
jail.
((Judge Donald Shaver)) No, that’s not true. He’d be going through a treatment program as a first offender, and that’s my concern about this whole initiative, because we do believe that you need to have all those treatment resources. My concern is all the limitations on treatment that this proposal contains. For instance, for a third and subsequent conviction for a drug offence, the judge cannot order treatment, the judge cannot order court supervision, the judge cannot order anything other than having the person serve twenty days in jail. Court-supervised treatment is the biggest, single advancement in drug treatment in this decade, and you don’t have to take my word for that; you can take the word of Dr. Alan Leschner of the National Institute of Drug Abuse—
((Jack)) Was there a mistake in the way that the initiative was written so that it took away some of the judge’s discretion?
((Jim Gonzalez, “Yes on 36”)) No, the judges actually end up with as much discretion as they’ve always had.
((Jack)) But Judge Shaver said that it does take away discretion.
((Jim Gonzalez, “Yes on 36”)) Well, then he hasn’t read the initiative.
((Jack)) But he’s a judge.
((Jim Gonzalez, “Yes on 36”)) Well, if he’s a judge—
((Judge Donald Shaver)) I’ve got the initiative right here highlighted—
((Jim Gonzalez, “Yes on 36”)) Let’s get to the point here. There is a racial and economic disparity on the way that people are treated. Sure, John Burton might get a chance at diversion, but is that true of a young person of African-American or Latino descent? No. The statistics very much show, and there is study after study showing that if this person gets arrested on this charge and a white person gets arrested on the same charge, the person of color does time, the other person, more often than not, gets treatment.
((Jack)) Larry let’s say we have the
power to do this; we can’t , but let’s say that we could. We add in drug
testing and we give back jurisdiction and discretion to the judges, would
you approve Prop 36?
((Larry Brown, Attorney)) No. Prop 36 needs to be defeated. Once it is defeated, then I think both sides need to come together and put in legislation next session to earmark greater funding for substance abuse treatment. You cannot, though, first pass Proposition 36. The flaw that his honor points to is dead-on correct. I have read the initiative also. Third and subsequent drug offences, the maximum punishment when you serve your time for good credits, twenty day in jail. It will effectively decriminalize drugs. One other point that I think is so—
((All)) [some hubbub ensues, until…]
((Jack)) Dr. McCarthy, go ahead.
((Dr. John McCarthy)) If people are allowed to get appropriate treatment, then we know that the success rate would significant. We know that from the research. We also know that from Arizona, which passed a similar initiative. We looked at a report from the Arizona Supreme Court with a very similar, in fact, a broader initiative—
((Judge Donald Shaver)) Is that the official report?
((Dr. John McCarthy)) Yes.
((Judge Donald Shaver)) I don’t think the official report is out yet.
((Jim Gonzalez, “Yes on 36”)) No, the Supreme Court issued a report two years ago, showing the data that Dr. McCarthy is talking about.
((Dr. John McCarthy)) And it’s very impressive. They have a system that has expanded treatment to the people who couldn’t get it. They have an almost eighty percent—
((Jack)) Well, we all agree that treatment works, and it’s a very good alternative to what we’re doing right now. Before we run out of time, let me ask about George Soros. Who is he, and how does he play into it?
((Jim Gonzalez, “Yes on 36”)) Well, we
have
three philanthropists that are funding the initiative. George Soros is a
billionaire who founded the Open Society Fund—
((Jack)) He is not a Californian?
((Jim Gonzalez, “Yes on 36”)) He is not a Californian, but he is, basically, a person that has come from the theory of harm reduction. You know, the drug war has cost so many lives, cost so much money, and not gotten us any positive results that he know is funding these debates, basically.
((Jack)) Is there anything wrong with that? Mr. Soros using his money to get his point of view out there and on the ballot?
((Larry Brown, Attorney)) I think it’s something that the voters have to scratch their heads and wonder, “Why is it that we have a billionaire outside of California trying to influence our drug policies?”
((Judge Donald Shaver)) I think the really relevant inquiry is why he hired just one San Francisco-based defense attorney to write this with essentially no input from the treatment community.
((Jim Gonzalez, “Yes on 36”)) It sounds
to me like the judge has a problem for too much justice for a person that’s
drug addicted.
((Jack)) Dr. McCarthy, let me give you the last word. Draw a fence around this. Where are we, and where are we going?
((Dr. John McCarthy)) I think, no matter what, we are going towards more treatment for these people. I think everybody is aware of that, and I think Prop 36 will do that, and I think that we need to support that.
END PROP 36 DISCUSSION
(( Jack )) Thank you all for joining us. We would like your thoughts on Proposition 36. What is the best way to deal with non-violent drug offenders, treatment or prison?
Send us an email to capitol week dot org or send us a letter to the address on your screen . . Melissa ?
(( Melissa )) Thanks Jack. On now to another controversial issue. This one involves mandatory healthcare coverage. The University of California could become one of the first public university systems to require student coverage as a condition of enrollment at all 9 campuses. While Administrators say it makes business sense . . . some students say it’s an outrage.
UC MANDATORY MEDICAL PKGNext fall, students at all University of California will be required to carry more than just books to class… …The Board of Regents decided proof of healthcare coverage will be needed to enroll…
((Dr. Michael Drake, University of California)) The reason for making it a requirement for all students is so we can negotiate a favorable price and be able to cover it by financial aid.
Each campus will negotiate with a private insure for the best group rate in their area. UC officials hope the average cost per year for students to purchase coverage will be 4-500 dollars.
((Scott Lau, Student at UC Berkeley)) I think it helps actually, because there’s actually a lot of emergency kind of stuff.
Students currently pay a fee each semester to use student health centers…
…That fee and use of student health centers will continue, but regents say additional healthcare coverage is needed to cover expenses of things like unexpected visits to the ER and chronic illnesses……That cost was rising and increasingly taxing resources for schools, clinics, and students. While rising costs were a factor in the new coverage requirement, UC officials say it was not the only reason.
((Dr. Michael Drake, University of California)) Well, the issue has been going on for quite some time, actually.
Currently, UC Berkeley and Santa Cruz require coverage—also acceptable, proof of coverage under a parent’s plan.
((Dr. Michael Drake, University of California)) Any student with adequate healthcare coverage will be able to waive this requirement.
The regents new decision makes the requirement statewide……but administrators admit some details need to be worked out. Like, what qualifies as adequate coverage, and what about students with preexisting conditions? There’s no guarantee those students would not have to pay a much higher rate to get covered and enroll.
((Nick Pappas, UC Association of Students)) I think it would be a travesty if we discriminated against anyone who had a pre-existing condition.
Student Associations are watching the issue closely. Nick Pappas says that, in theory, affordable access to healthcare for students could be groundbreaking, but if potential problems aren’t worked out, requiring coverage to attend classes could be a disaster. At the least, a financial burden to, at worst, discrimination.
((Nick Pappas, UC Association of Students)) If they just think that they can throw out this sort of edict and have people respond, then they have another thing coming, because there are far too many details that have to be addressed.
UC officials say the enrollment requirement will take affect next fall… …meantime, they will try and address any concerns.
((Michael Drake, University of California)) I really won’t know until the wintertime what the minimum requirements for all those will be and how those my differ from campus to campus and exactly how much that will cost, so I couldn’t answer that specifically, but that would be a consideration in some cases.
END UC MEDICAL COVERAGE PKG
(( Melissa )) A U.C. summit to iron out these details will be held this December. The decision could effect an estimated 40,000 who are not covered or in a plan in the U-C system. Joining us now for more on this issue:
Assistant Vice Chancellor Steve Lustig with the University Health Department at UC Berkeley. And Elizabeth Guillen, counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
DISCUSSION ON UC MEDICAL COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS((Melissa)) Steve, we’ll start with you. In theory, it sounds great, but is the Devil in the details as we say?
((Steve Lustig, Assistant Vice Chancellor
UC Berkeley)) I don’t think so. I think one of the hidden problems in healthcare
coverage is the number of students nationally who aren’t c
overed,
who have inadequate coverage, or who have non-portable coverage so that they
can’t use it as they think they can when they go to college. This has effected
a lot of students’ ability to remain in school. By pooling students together,
it can lower the price and allow access for everybody in the healthcare system
beyond the campus.
((Melissa)) All right. All of us are looking for affordable healthcare as a big issue, and it would be wonderful, in fact, if affordable healthcare was available for everyone. Liz, from your perspective, it seems like a good idea trying to get, especially for low income groups, healthcare, but are we creating a barrier here in some cases?
((Elizabeth Guillen, Mexican American Legal Defense Fund)) Well, for Latino students, minority students, and other low income students, a greater crisis is really increasing student enrollment at the university level, so while there are a lot of reasons that students have to withdraw from college, it is our belief that the social pressures and academic persistence is probably greater than the healthcare issue, and we do have a concern about the financial burden that this will add to access.
((Melissa)) We’re looking at—the hope
is, Steve, that the cost will be around five hundred dollars for a twelve
month plan per student, but there’s no guarantee. I guess that price could
vary from campus to campus since each campus will be shopping around for the
best deal.
((Steve Lustig)) Right. Each campus will look for what kind of package will supplement their on-campus services, so this will also require the campuses to pump up some level of on-campus primary care coverage because the plan is really for emergencies, hospitalizations, complex lab tests, issue that catch students off guard or prevent them from having access to the system. With respect to access for lower income students, this has, in Berkeley, turned out to be a great attraction to families to know that their children will be covered by an expanded healthcare system.
((Melissa)) Now, as we look at this system,
if you’re currently not in a healthcare system00at that age, healthcare is
less mentioned and is not as big a concern as some other issues. If you have,
say, diabetes, and you’re not under a plan, there isn’t a safeguard, so that
you have to pay more to take classes. Is that a concern in the Latino community,
if you have a preexisting condition and are not currently covered, that you’ll
go to class, and that they’ll be this additional requirement.
((Elizabeth Guillen)) Well, the additional requirement at the listed prices—I’ve read about between four and seven hundred dollars—is one thing, but to the extent that you know you’ve got a pre-existing condition—I think that the uncertainty of what the health insurance will be and also the uncertainty of whether or not there will be health insurance available to you, I think will be an additional deterrent to students’ efforts to apply to the university, on top of the academic issues as well as the financial issues with regard to tuition and other fees. I think it just adds to the burden.
((Melissa)) Steve, is that a concern for the university that this could eventually be a deterrent?
((Steve Lustig)) Yes, of course, whenever we raise fees, I think it is a concern, but the fact that this can now be wrapped into the financial aid package, and by being part of university policy, maybe more available for financial aid through the state. I think we’ll help that out, so it doesn’t all translate into work study and loans. I also believe that under state policy, we cannot bar preexisting conditions, and we don’t do that at Berkeley. The value of pooling the students is that everybody gets access regardless of your health condition--
((Melissa)) To try to get that lowered. It seems that as we look at the student health centers that the students are using those more and more for things that, maybe if they had preventive care, they would not need. Is it almost like what we’re seeing with emergency rooms, people are turning to them as a last resort? Is that the burden that these student health clinics are facing, Steve?
((Steve
Lustig)) It’s the burden that the students are facing if they don’t have
coverage. If they allow their conditions to worsen and can’t follow up on
referrals. What the campuses provide is primary care, but the minute a referral
occurs, if students can’t pay for it, they let their condition build up and
end up with an emergency room bill.
((Melissa)) Thank you, Steve. Liz, as we look at the problem of healthcare, could this be groundbreaking if we iron out some of these details and provide, in fact, a certain segment of the population that’s going without healthcare a low cost way to give that to them?
((Elizabeth Guillen)) It could be, but to the extent that the cost will be wrapped into financial aid packages—unless that’s covered by grants, this will just add to the debt load, and most financial aid is already in the form of loans, and for Latino students, other minority students, low incomes students, the high debt load is another deterrent and another factor to keeping education accessible.
((Melissa)) All right, in our final few minutes here, Steve, as we look at other universities, some private universities on a campus by campus basis doing this. Do you see other universities or institutions keeping a close eye on this and maybe following suit?
((Steve Lustig)) Definitely. I think if you look nationally, most private universities have an insurance requirement, and a number of public universities do also. I think the trick is going to be trying to make sure that it does not deter admission to public universities, and that there’s financial aid that comes with it.
((Melissa)) And, Liz, your final thoughts
in our last few moments here.
((Elizabeth Guillen)) Well, it shouldn’t be a surprise that so many students are uninsured or have inadequate coverage. As the third highest state in the nation for lack of coverage, uh, the student group is a microcosm of the entire population, and many students come from families who are working poor, but because of the high cost of living in California and insurance, they can’t afford insurance, so for many students, this will be the first time that they have coverage, but we’ll be watching very closely to see how it’s played out.
END DISCUSSION ON UC MEDICAL COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS(( Melissa )) Thank you Steve and Elizabeth. What do you think about mandatory coverage as a condition of enrollment? Send us an email to capitolweek dot org or send a letter to the address on your screen. Time now for some viewer mail.
Jack?
(( Jack)) Melissa, we received strong feedback regarding last week’s interactive show on education and vouchers.
Arne A. from Lodi writes:
“Proposition 38, the welfare voucher for the rich, is reckless.”
But Tanny O. writes: “ After dealing with the Los Angeles School District I have transferred my children . . . why should only the rich be allowed to send their children to private school?”
Thank you for your comments.
((Melissa )) And Jack so far our website poll on vouchers has received almost 400 replies . . . 80 percent are against.
((Jack)) Next week , a look at how the Presidential candidates fared in their first prime-time debate.
((Melissa)) Plus . . . another hot-button political issue, violence in the media. That’s all for this week. Thanks for joining us.
((Jack ))
We’ll see you next time.