The Prop. 5 $50,000 Meth Myth versus 1 Kilogram of Facts

The central message of the “No On Prop. 5” campaign is a claim that, should Prop. 5 pass, drug dealers who are convicted of selling as much as $50,000 worth of methamphetamine would have their parole reduced form three years to six months. In the latest No-On-5 TV ad, this fact is presented in a way to make it sound as stark and frightening as possible.  The truth, however, is far different.

The No-On-5 campaign uses the “$50,000 worth of meth” line because it sounds scarier than the actual language of Prop. 5.  Prop. 5 says that anyone convicted of selling “less than one kilogram” of methamphetamine” will have parole reduced to six months from three years. The No-On-5 campaign arrives at the $50,000 figure by estimating the street value of one kilogram of methamphetamine.

This “less than one kilogram” thing is not something that the Prop. 5 drafters came up with out of nowhere, it is actually rooted in long-standing California law.  Under The California Health and Safety Code, people convicted of selling less than a kilo of meth are sentenced to a minimum of 2 years in prison.  People convicted selling more than kilo of meth face a minimum of 5 years in prison. (Cal. H&S 11370.4(b)(4)).

Law enforcement officials clearly believe that those caught selling more than a kilo of meth are bigger fish in the drug dealing world than those caught with less than a kilo. Those caught with less than a kilo are hardly kingpins, they are far more likely to be addicts who sell drugs to support their habit.

Also, no matter what the weight, Prop.5 does not allow the six month parole option to anyone convicted of selling drugs to a minor. Nor does Prop.5 eliminate sections of the Health and Safety Code which require harsher sentences for people who are not only caught selling drugs, but are also in possession of a firearm or more then $100,000 in cash.  These offenders would not be eligible for six month parole. (Cal H&S 11370.2 et seq.)

Now you may wonder why we’re letting so many prisoners out on parole in the first place?  Glad you asked.  We here at Johnny California read this super-long report from the University of California, Irvine and we had it all boiled down to some easy to understand facts.  But then the New York Times summarized the report last Friday.  The Sentencing Law and Policy blog did a good job of excerpting The New York Times article, and we’ve excerpted their excerpt:

According to a new federally backed study conducted at the University of California, Irvine, the state’s corrections costs have grown by about 50 percent in less than a decade and now account for about 10 percent of state spending — nearly the same amount as higher education. The costs could rise substantially given that a federal lawsuit may require the state to spend $8 billion to bring the prison system’s woefully inadequate medical services up to constitutional standards.

The state also has perhaps the most counterproductive and ill-conceived parole system in the United States.  More people are sent to prison in California by parole officers than by the courts. In addition, about 66 percent of California’s parolees land back in prison after three years, compared with about 40 percent nationally.  Four in 10 are sent back for technical violations like missed appointments or failed drug tests.

State lawmakers, some of whom are fearful of being seen as soft on crime, have failed to make perfectly reasonable sentencing modifications and other changes that the prisons desperately need.  Unless they muster some courage soon, Californians will find themselves swamped by prison costs and unable to afford just about anything else.

We’d like to add one fact from The U.C. Irvine Report:  66% of parolees have have substance abuse histories. Few receive any drug treatment while in prison, parolees invariably fail the tests and return to prison for short periods of time, still not receiving any treatment.

One of those “perfectly reasonable sentencing modifications and other changes that the prisons desperately need” is exactly what Prop. 5 proposes, treatment for non-violent parolees instead of re-criminalizing their addiction.

Prop. 5 also proposes diversion for addicts before they even get to prison.  Read about that here.