Sign up here to
receive our e-alerts

July 20, 2007
E-mail this page to a friend

Assembly Votes to Cut Life-Saving Drug Treatment, Provide Tax Breaks to Large Corporations

Senate President Objects to $25 Million Cut to Prop. 36 Spending

Prop. 36 Saves $2.50 Per $1 Invested; Cut Would Cost $62.5 Million

Contact: Dave Fratello (310) 394-2952 or Margaret Dooley (858) 336-3685

SACRAMENTO, July 20 – The California Assembly today reversed its agreement with the Senate to increase funding for community-based treatment for non-violent, low-level drug offenders, voting instead to cut current spending levels by $25 million. Advocates say the plan to cut funding to the life-saving and cost-effective program, in exchange for hefty tax breaks for large corporations, is a slap in the face of California voters. Prop. 36 proponents ask the Senate to reject the cut, pointing out it would actually cost taxpayers $62.5 million, and leave the program short by over $100 million.

Margaret Dooley, Prop. 36 Coordinator for the Drug Policy Alliance, said, “Cutting Prop. 36 does not save California money; it costs dearly. The program turns tax-spenders into taxpayers, by offering people the opportunity to break the cycle of addiction and incarceration. Given the Senate President’s opposition to the cuts, we ask the Senate to hold the Assembly to the $160 million funding level previously agreed upon.”

Prior to the vote, Senate President pro Tem Don Perata encouraged the Assembly Speaker not to cut the program, writing “I am alarmed and dismayed by rumors that you are considering a half a billion dollars in tax breaks for special interests…. Even the increases we proposed to the state’s Prop 36 program - aimed at keeping non-violent drug offenders out of prison and putting them into treatment programs - has fallen victim to concerns about the state’s long-term deficit…. We cannot continue to fund education, higher education and crucial human services issues…by providing tax giveaways.”

Analyses conducted by researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles show that for every $1 invested in Prop. 36, the state saves $2.50. For program completers, savings increases to $4 per $1 spent. UCLA research has also found that Prop. 36 needs a minimum of $228.6 million in funding to provide adequate services—over $100 million more than the Assembly has approved for the program in 2007-08.

In 2000, 61 percent of California voters approved Prop. 36, permanently changing state law so that all eligible non-violent drug possession offenders must be given the option of state-licensed treatment. In six years, over 70,000 Californians have graduated Prop. 36 treatment and taxpayers have saved between $200 million and $300 million per year. For more information, visit and

Proposition 36 Fact Sheet

See more press releases

Common Sense for Drug Policy
California Society of Addiction Medicine
California State Association of Counties

Read commentary from Oliver H., a Prop 36 graduate.

Get the Facts
Over a dozen Proposition 36 fact sheets are available for download. Topics include: the Effectiveness of Drug Treatment, Drug Courts/Deferred Entry, and the California Correctional System.
breakdowns of the 2000 initiative votes
For background on the Prop. 36 campaign and other votes nationwide for drug policy reform, see:

Contact Lists
County Lead Agencies
and Contacts
Parole Region Contact
Probation Contacts



Drug Policy Alliance · (916) 444-3751 · [email protected]