Page One

Recovering addict opposing Prop. 36

By Olga R. Rodríguez Special to the Daily Planet
Tuesday October 31, 2000

When Tom Gorham was 37, he lived in a house in Half Moon Bay so close to the ocean he could hear the waves. 

Two years later, he was living under an Oakland freeway where all he could hear were the passing cars. 

“My mother died of an overdose of pills and vodka,” Gorham said. “My sister was dying of cirrhosis of the liver and my wife left me and took our children. The only way I knew how to deal with my problems was drinking and getting high.” 

Gorham, who has been clean and sober for 26 months, lived on the streets of Berkeley and Oakland for 12 years until a judge at a drug court in Berkeley sent him to treatment instead of jail. By then, he says, he had been arrested more than 400 times. 

“Drug court saved my life,” he said. “Most of my arrests were drug related but I was sent to jail every time. Being sent to treatment gave me a second chance in life.” 

Gorham could be a poster child for Proposition 36, an initiative on the November ballot that suggests spending $120 million a year to send first and second-time non-violent drug offenders to treatment rather than jail. Instead, he joined the opposition and will be speaking against Proposition 36, along with actor Martin Sheen, chair of the No on 36 campaign. 

Opponents of Proposition 36, Gorham included, argue that the initiative fails to address addiction and it eliminates accountability and consequences giving drug abusers little incentive to change their behavior or take treatment seriously. 

”Nowhere in the proposition does it say the aim is to get people clean and sober,” said Gorham, who works as outreach coordinator and case manager with Options for Recovery, a drug treatment program in Berkeley. “They talk about treatment but it’s obvious they don’t understand how to help addicts.” 

Backers of Proposition 36 say the initiative won’t help everyone but, they argue, the current drug court system only serves at most 7 percent of the offenders charged with non-violent drug offenses. They say the proposition, if passed, will reroute as many as 36,000 drug offenders away from prison and county jails and into community-based treatment centers. 

”It will leave out some badly addicted offenders,” said Scott Ehlers, spokesperson for the Yes on 36 campaign. “We agree with that. But what the proposition wants to do is help those people whose only crime is being in possession of drugs for personal use. Unfortunately, one initiative is not going to solve all of California’s drug related problems.” 

Nearly one in three of the state’s 162,000 prisoners is serving time for a crime related to drugs and about eight in 10 have a history of substance abuse. Yet, there are only 8,000 beds in prison designated for substance-abuse treatment. 

Community drug-treatment programs fail to fill the gap. According to the state’s Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs 6,806 people were in residential programs funded by public dollars at the end of the past fiscal year. Another 2,500 were on the waiting list. And if Prop 36 passes another 36,000 could join them. 

But the availability of beds, opponents such as Gorham say, is not the only problem with the initiative. 

In the current drug court system a judge gets to decide whether the drug offender should go to jail or be sent to treatment. If passed, Proposition 36 will require all defendants who plead guilty to simple drug possession and have no other convictions such as violence or use of a firearm to be sent to drug treatment. 

“The problem is that the proposition, if passed, will take away drug testing and the threat of jail,” Gorham, who has a certificate in addiction counseling from John F. Kennedy University, said. “Without these two tools there is no chance of getting an addict's attention.” 

Ehlers dismisses these criticisms and says a judge can still order drug testing, the only difference is that the addict will be required to pay for their drug testing as part of probation. Judges, he says, will retain the ability to send drug abusers to jail or prison, but only after the addict has failed two or more attempts at recovery. 

”We don't do anything to prohibit drug testing,” Ehlers said. “We just want all funds available to be used in treatment programs.” 

Opponents argue the initiative deprives judges of the carrots and sticks approach they need to ensure that drug offenders remain in treatment and as a result it will eventually clog courts with drug related cases. 

”An addict does not wake up one day and decides to stop using,” said Gorham. 

”They will choose treatment to avoid going to jail. But without intervention and support the addicts won't be able to successfully complete a treatment program and they will end up in jail sooner or later.” 

Alameda Superior Court Judge Carol Brosnahan, who has been in charge of Berkeley's drug court since March, worries Proposition 36 will give the addict control of the situation. 

“This proposition let's the addict decide what type of treatment they should get,” Judge Brosnahan said. “They can fail treatment three times before a judge can intervene and help them see there is the option of a sober and clean life. For some of them it might be too late.” 

Gorham says he feels lucky to have had a tough judge and the help of Dr. Davida Coady, director of Options for Recovery. 

”Four times I was put in jail while in treatment for showing up drunk to the progress reports,” Gorham said. “But they stuck with me. Under Proposition 36 I wouldn't be here today.”